MEDICAL POT DEALT A BLOW

Supreme Court Rules That It's Not Protected

Demaris Strohm smokes or eats marijuana every day -- not for the
pleasure of it but to relieve severe migraines and to restore her appetite.

"My doctors approve of it," the 47-year-old Strohm said yesterday as
she was picking up her medicinal marijuana at a White Center
cooperative. "It's the first time, thank creation for small miracles,
that something stopped the pain from my migraines."

But Strohm could be out of small miracles. A ruling yesterday by the
U.S. Supreme Court may put Strohm and thousands of other people like
her in Washington in legal jeopardy for the first time since voters
approved medical marijuana more than two years ago.

The court ruled yesterday that marijuana grown and sold for medical
purposes is not protected from prosecutions under federal anti-drug
laws. The 8-0 decision involved a California case and focused on
distributing marijuana.

The court did not overturn California's medical-marijuana law or
similar laws in eight other states, including Washington.

So some organizations in Seattle said the ruling would change little
in Washington.

"The ruling appears to allow patients to use (marijuana), it just
doesn't allow them to distribute it," said JoAnn McKee, a co-founder
of Green Cross Cooperative, which distributes medical marijuana to
about 1,500 patients across Washington.

The Lifelong AIDS Alliance of Seattle urged its clients not to
panic.

"Although the ruling may affect public opinion and trends in the use
of medical marijuana, it has no effect on medicinal marijuana users in
Washington state. It is important that our clients and others who do
use marijuana for medicinal purposes are not frightened or misinformed
by today's ruling," Joel Hastings, government affairs director at the
alliance, said in a statement.

However, the Supreme Court decision opinion also suggests that users
of marijuana for medical purposes may have no more protection against
prosecution than those who distribute it.

The Washington State Attorney General's Office believes the decision
puts all those involved in medical-marijuana use on shaky legal footing.

"The opinion is so broadly written it apparently would not only impact
marijuana manufacturing and distribution, but also people who use it
for medical purposes," said Gary Larson, spokesman for state Attorney
General Christine Gregoire.

The only solution may be for Congress to amend federal drug laws to
allow marijuana use for medical purposes, Larson said.

AIDS patients or cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy use marijuana
to control nausea and to stimulate appetite. But people with other
ailments use it, too.

McKee, 58, uses marijuana to relieve the pain from a spinal-cord
injury she suffered 40 years ago. "Without it, I would have to take so
much pain medication, the doctors said I would be in serious trouble,"
she said.

McKee said she believes Green Cross will not run afoul of the law even
after the ruling. Green Cross' cooperative status means that the
patients own the pot, she said. To join the co-op, patients must have
their doctor's authorization.

Green Cross, with offices in White Center, verifies the doctor's
recommendations before providing the drug, she said. The organization
supplies it to 20 to 50 patients a day.

About 70 percent of Green Cross patients have AIDS. About 20 percent
use it for symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and about 10 percent for
cancer, spinal cord injuries, glaucoma and other diseases. Most smoke
or ingest the drug daily.

Still, many physicians have resisted authorizing marijuana use, said
Dr. Robert Killian, a Seattle family practitioner who sees mostly
HIV-positive patients and led the drive to get medical marijuana
approved in the state.

"Doctors are still afraid to advise patients to use it. They don't
want to go out on that limb because of the DEA."

Indeed, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration in Seattle
said yesterday that his federal agency supports the Supreme Court's
decision but that the ruling will not change much.

"We will continue to enforce federal drug laws, including the laws
against marijuana," said Thomas O'Brien, the DEA spokesman.

Initiative 692, which allows marijuana use for medical purposes, went
into effect in December 1998. Since then, no county prosecutor in
Washington has filed charges over a medical marijuana, said Dan
Satterberg, chief of state in the King County Prosecutor's Office.

He said his office has gotten two or three marijuana cases a year that
are not prosecuted because of medical use. Prosecutors have trained
local police on the law. In some cases, police have left marijuana at
a home after concluding the drug was for medical purposes, Satterberg
said.

Before the Supreme Court was a case from Oakland, Calif., where a
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was set up to distribute marijuana after
voters approved a marijuana initiative in November 1996.

Federal prosecutors persuaded a federal District Court judge to order
the cooperative not to grow or distribute marijuana. The judge is the
brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who did not take part
in yesterday's decision.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the District Court,
saying medical necessity was a defense that could be used against
prosecutors and federal drug laws.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling yesterday. The
decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, focused on the federal
Controlled Substances Act. That law makes marijuana a "schedule I"
drug and illegal, except for government approved research.

He noted that the act does not make a medical exception for marijuana,
as it does other drugs, and that it considers pot as having "no
currently accepted medical use."

He concluded that "medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing
and distributing marijuana." But the opinion went further to suggest
that a medical need to use marijuana could not be used as a defense
against possession laws.

Thomas wrote in a footnote that nothing he had seen or analyzed
allowed him to distinguish between distributing marijuana and other
prohibitions against the drug in the Controlled Substances Act.

[sidebar]

WASHINGTON'S DRIVE TO LEGALIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Nov. 4, 1997: Voters reject Initiative 685, a medical-marijuana
proposal. Opponents successfully fought I-685, saying that it went too
far and would make legal such drugs as LSD and heroin.

Nov. 3, 1998: Voters are asked a second time to approve medical
marijuana and do so. Initiative 692, which won 59 percent of the vote,
is more narrowly drawn than I-685. It allows people to have up to a
60-day supply of marijuana. Users would have to have a letter from
their doctor saying that they had been advised about marijuana use and
that they qualified under the law. A caregiver could obtain or grow
marijuana for the patient. But the caregiver would have to have
approval from the patient. Recreational use of marijuana remained
illegal. On the same election day, voters in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon
and Nevada either approved or affirmed the use of marijuana for
medical purposes.

Dec. 3, 1998: Initiative 692 takes effect.

Dec. 29, 1998: Tacoma police arrest a 35-year-old blind AIDS patient
and his 61-year-old mother after they found marijuana growing in their
home. They arrived at the home when the AIDS patient's emergency
beeper went off by mistake. There were no documents from a physician
at the home as the law required.

Jan. 13, 1999: Pierce County prosecutors decide not to file charges
against the man and his mother.

May 14, 2001: The U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously that federal
law does not allow an exception for medical marijuana use.