SMOKED OUT

High Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana

In a rare 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared this week that
there is no "medical necessity" exception to the federal law that prohibits
distribution or use of marijuana.

The ruling came in a case involving the so-called Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative. The co-op claimed it was entitled, under California law, to
sell marijuana for "medicinal" use.

But in their ruling, the justices concluded that Proposition 215, approved
by California voters in 1996, does not supersede the federal Controlled
Substances Act, which lists marijuana among the drugs whose production and
distribution are illegal.

The Justice Department's case against the Oakland marijuana buyers' club
dates to 1998, when it obtained an injunction from a federal district court
in San Francisco barring the Bay Area club and other similar "medicinal"
marijuana clubs from distributing the narcotic.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overruled
the lower court, ruling that medical necessity could be a defense to the
charge of distributing marijuana in seemingly obvious violation of federal
drug law.

Enter the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the 9th Circuit's ruling last
August, effectively shutting down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
while the justices pondered the case on which they issued their decision
this week.

Proponents of "medicinal" marijuana take some solace in the fact that the
high court did not unequivocally declare Proposition 215 and similar state
laws unconstitutional. They see some wiggle room in the court's ruling.

Yes, acknowledges Chuck Thomas, communications director for a group that
calls itself the Marijuana Policy Project, "the Supreme Court has ruled
that the medical necessity defense cannot be used to avoid a federal
conviction for marijuana."

However, he adds, "a state government may still allow its residents to
possess, grow, or distribute medical marijuana."

The best way to resolve the "medical" marijuana issue, it seems, is on
Capitol Hill. For if exceptions are to be made to the Controlled Substances
Act, if the production and distribution of marijuana are to be legalized
for "medicinal" use, then it is up Congress to amend the federal law.

As it is now, there is no hard scientific evidence that proves the efficacy
of medical marijuana (although a major study is being conducted by
researchers at UCSD that might shed some light).

Moreover, there are legal alternatives to marijuana, including a synthetic
form of the active ingredient in cannabis, that might provide the pain
relief patients suffering from such diseases as cancer, AIDS and multiple
sclerosis sometimes seek by smoking marijuana.

The reasonable-minded on both sides of the medical marijuana debate agree
that the issue merits thorough scientific study. And that the matter of
whether Congress amends the Controlled Substances Act to allow a medical
necessity exception ought to be based on science.