COURT BARS MARIJUANA TREATMENT FOR THE ILL

Top Justices Say U.S. Law Overrides Acts In 9 States

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 yesterday that there is no
exception in federal law for people to use marijuana to ease their pain
from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

Legal experts say patients could still use marijuana for medical reasons in
the states that allow it, but that it will be more difficult to obtain the
drug because the Supreme Court said distribution violates federal law.

Angel McClary, 35, of Oakland, Calif., said she will not stop using the
drug to help her cope with seizures and an inoperable brain tumor.

"I am not going to let my children watch me die. If that is wrong, so be
it," she said at a news conference.

California is one of nine states where the use of marijuana is allowed for
medical purposes.

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a 1970 federal law
"reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of
an exception." The only exemption is for government funded research
projects that involve some 200 people. Thomas said the
controlled-substances statute "includes no exception at all for any medical
use of marijuana" except for the research, even though the law does so for
other drugs. The court is "unwilling to view this omission as an accident,"
Thomas wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens, though joining in the overall ruling, said in a
concurring opinion with two colleagues that the decision went too far. It
should have left open the possibility that an individual could raise a
"medical necessity" defense, especially a patient "for whom there is no
alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering,"
Stevens wrote.

He also said the ruling could lead to friction between the federal
government and states that have passed medical marijuana laws.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate because his brother, a
federal district judge, presided over the case.

The decision reversed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that
medical necessity can be a legal defense in marijuana cases.

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction
against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana
distributors.

Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor who represented the
cooperative, said, "The effect only reaches manufacturers and distributors.
But it does put at risk patients who grow their own because that is
`manufacture' under federal law."

In California, however, individuals can legally grow marijuana for their
own medical use. "That's the alternative source to the black market," said
Bill Zimmerman of Americans for Medical Rights, a Santa Monica group that
sponsored state initiatives to permit medical marijuana use.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer called it "unfortunate that the
court was unable to respect California's historic role as a ... leader in
the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for relief
other than through medical marijuana." He said the opinion would be
reviewed for its effect on California law.

Uelmen commented, "I cannot imagine federal resources being poured into
going out and arresting the sick people who are growing marijuana for
medicinal use. I suspect federal resources will be used to seek injunctions
to close down major distribution centers."

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical
marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature passed a similar law and the governor
signed it last year.

While several clubs closed down, the Oakland cooperative turned to
registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling.

Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from
chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow
multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra
Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Stevens was joined in
his concurring opinion by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.