HIGH COURT BACKS STATES WITH MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Justices Refuse To Consider A Federal Request To Punish Doctors For
Suggesting The Drug To Patients.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for state laws
allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

Justices turned down the Bush administration's request to consider
whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or
perhaps just talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients.
An appeals court said the government cannot.

Because the high court declined to intervene, Oregon doctors can
continue to give patients information about medical marijuana without
fear that the government might go after their licenses to practice
medicine.

"Physicians will continue to be permitted to speak freely about the
pros and cons of the use of medicinal marijuana, which is an important
component of the Oregon law," said Kevin Neely, a spokesman for the
Oregon Attorney General's Office.

Eight other states have laws legalizing marijuana for people with
physician recommendations or prescriptions: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada and Washington. And 35
states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.

Oregon has 6,085 licensed medical marijuana patients, state records
show. The state also has 3,819 licensed caregivers.

Under state law, residents who are licensed to grow marijuana for
medicinal use can have three mature plants and four immature plants.

But federal law bans the use of pot under any circumstances. In Oregon
and other states, federal drug agents have seized marijuana cultivated
for medicinal purposes.

Federal officials say they are enforcing the Controlled Substances
Act, which regulates the manufacture and distribution of drugs.
Marijuana falls into a group of drugs considered most dangerous by the
federal government.

Neely said federal drug agents won't be deterred from going after
marijuana growers -- medicinal or not -- in the aftermath of Tuesday's
deferral by the Supreme Court.

"This ruling simply halts a battle in the courtroom," Neely said. "The
legality of the use of marijuana was not addressed. In fact, the
federal law clearly establishes that the use of medical marijuana or
any marijuana is illegal. So this doesn't have any impact on federal
law enforcement."

The case gave the court an opportunity to review its second medical
marijuana case in two years. The last one involved cannabis clubs.

This one presented a more difficult issue, pitting free-speech rights
of doctors against government power to keep physicians from
encouraging illegal drug use. A ruling for the Bush administration
would have made the state medical marijuana laws unusable.

"I think it's safe to say that for the advocates of medical marijuana
this is an important victory," Neely said. "They have averted
catastrophe. =85 Today, the advocates for medical marijuana were able
to avoid the worst possible scenario, which is that physicians
wouldn't be able to communicate with patients about what they deemed
to be a reasonable medical treatment."

Some California doctors and patients, in filings at the Supreme Court,
compared doctor information on pot to physicians' advice on "red wine
to reduce the risk of heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or
chicken soup."

The administration argued that public heath, not the First Amendment
free-speech rights of doctors or patients, was at stake.

In states with medical marijuana laws, doctors can give written or
oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and
other serious illnesses.

Even some supporters of the laws had expected the Supreme Court to
step into the case. They said the court's refusal to intervene,
although it does not address the merits of the case, could encourage
other states to consider passing medical marijuana laws.

Robert Kampia, head of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington,
said the court "has eliminated any doubt that states have the right to
protect medical marijuana patients under state law, and that
physicians have the right to give patients honest advice and
recommendations, whether the federal government approves or not."

Keith Vines, a prosecutor in San Francisco who used marijuana to
combat HIV-related illnesses, was among those who challenged a federal
policy put in place during the Clinton administration. That policy
required the revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors
who recommend marijuana.

Policy supporters contend that the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration must be allowed to protect the public.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that
physicians should be able to speak candidly with patients without fear
of government sanctions, but they can be punished if they actually
help patients obtain the drug.

The case is Walters v. Conant, 03-40.