APPEALS COURT BACKS STRICT READING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

The state Court of Appeals has issued its first interpretation of
Washington's medical marijuana law, upholding a man's conviction for
failing to follow it precisely.

Arthur "Ocean Israel" Shepherd, of Stevens County northwest of Spokane,
pleaded guilty to felony possession of marijuana in March 2000. He reserved
the right to argue on appeal that Initiative 692 should have protected him
from prosecution because he was growing marijuana for his friend, John
Wilson, who has a debilitating spine condition.

The Spokane division of the appeals court rejected that argument yesterday
on two counts.

First, Dr. Gregg Sharp, who gave Wilson permission to use marijuana, wrote
that using it "may" help him. The law requires doctors to find that
marijuana "would likely" help patients, which is a different standard, two
of the three judges said.

"It is not enough, as Dr. Sharp did here, to simply say that the potential
benefits of the medical use of marijuana may outweigh the health risks for
a particular patient," wrote Judge Dennis Sweeney.

Judge Kenneth Kato disagreed on that point, saying the law is somewhat
ambiguous and that the "would likely" standard should not be taken literally.

But Kato agreed with the other judges on the second point: that Shepherd
did not prove he was producing only enough marijuana to supply Wilson for
60 days, the limit dictated by the law. There was no evidence in the record
concerning how much pot Wilson needed, so there was no way to know what
constituted a 60-day supply.

I-692, which passed in 1998 with 59 percent of the vote, gives doctors the
right to recommend -- but not prescribe -- marijuana for people suffering
from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and other conditions that
cause "intractable pain."

Marijuana is still illegal to buy and sell. It's listed in the same class
of drugs as heroin and LSD. Possession of pot is allowed under I-692, but
state law does not say how people can obtain it in the first place.

The appeals court suggested that doctors begin mentioning specific amounts
of marijuana.

"While nothing in the act requires the doctor to disclose the patient's
particular illness, there must, nonetheless, be some statement as to how
much he or she needs," Sweeney wrote.

Law enforcement officials welcomed that part of the ruling. They have been
asking the Washington State Medical Association to come up with some
guidelines for helping them define a 60-day supply.

"I was really heartened that the court suggested it's up to the doctor to
provide guidance as to what the supply is," said Kitsap County Prosecutor
Russ Hauge. "It's very helpful, because that's where the burden belongs. If
it's a medical issue, then the medical community needs to tell us what the
amount is."

About a month ago, Hauge said, he decided not to press charges in a medical
marijuana case because he didn't know whether 100 plants grown for three
patients constituted a 60-day supply.

Authorities seized 15 plants from Shepherd when they arrested him.