MEDICINAL POT RULED ILLEGAL

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the nation's medicinal marijuana
movement yesterday, ruling that a federal anti-drug law makes no exception
for seriously ill patients in California who use pot for health reasons.

The 8-to-0 ruling means that federal authorities can shut down Oakland's
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative as well as 20 other centers around the state
that have been distributing marijuana.

The centers have been in operation since California became the first state
in the nation to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana when voters passed
Proposition 215 in 1996.

Marijuana is recommended by doctors to relieve the often debilitating
symptoms of AIDS, epilepsy, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis as well as the
side effects from the treatment of cancer.

Although the court did not rule directly on Proposition 215, it cast doubt
on whether the statute, as well as similar laws in eight other states, can
co-exist with the federal prohibition.

The decision could influence the California Supreme Court, which is
considering whether Proposition 215 protects patients who use marijuana
from criminal prosecution.

In balancing patients' medical needs versus the nation's war on drugs, the
court said Congress classified marijuana strictly as an illegal substance
when it passed the federal Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits
worthy of an exception," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion.

"We hold that medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and
distributing marijuana."

Joining Thomas were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

In a strongly worded concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed
that the Oakland distributor cannot rely on a "medical necessity" defense
to escape prosecution under the federal law. But he said the majority went
too far in suggesting the same reasoning applied to patients.

States' Rights Cited:

In a tack usually adopted by the conservative justices, Stevens said the
federal government should respect states' rights.

"By passing Proposition 215, California voters have decided that seriously
ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution
under state laws," wrote Stevens, who battled cancer years ago.

"This case does not call upon the Court to deprive all such patients of the
benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution," he said. Justices
David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the decision because his
brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, handled the case on the trial
court level.

Gerald Uelmen, a professor at the University of Santa Clara School of Law,
who represented the Oakland cooperative, said the decision is so sweeping
it could prevent patients from relying on medical necessity as a defense in
using drugs other than marijuana.

"Federal authorities now have the green light if they want to close down
distributors," he said. "They are even free to arrest patients."

He said that patients may still be able to rely on constitutional arguments,

including the claim that their due process right to preservation of life is
being violated.

Uelmen said that those who support the medicinal use of marijuana should
shift the battle from the courts to Congress.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced a bill last month that would create
an exception in federal drug laws for states that, through statute or
ballot initiative, approve the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. But
even the bill's sponsors admit it has little chance of passage in the
Republican-controlled House.

Misguided Ruling:

Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland cooperative, called
yesterday's court decision "heavy-handed and misguided."

Robert Raich, an attorney for the cooperative, said that the club will
continue to interview patients and issue identification cards to obtain
marijuana.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who supported the Oakland
cooperative's medical necessity defense, said the states, and not the
federal government, have traditionally determined what is necessary for
public health and safety.

"It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's
historic role as a 'laboratory' for good public policy and a leader in the
effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for relief other
than through medical marijuana," Lockyer said.

Gina Pesulima, a spokeswoman for Americans for Medical Rights, the Los
Angeles group that sponsored the nine state laws permitting medicinal use
of marijuana, said the decision is a blow to the cooperative distribution
centers the states have relied on. "It's another move by the federal
government to obstruct the ability of very seriously ill people to have
relief," she said.

The case arose after the Clinton administration filed suit in 1998 seeking
to close the buyers clubs that cropped up after medicinal marijuana laws
were passed in California and the other states -- Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

What The Ruling Means: The decision is likely to spell the end of large
cooperative centers that distribute pot, although the court did not rule
directly on laws in California and eight other states allowing the
medicinal use of marijuana.

What's Next: Supporters say patients still will be able to grow and use
small amounts of marijuana. States, including California, are reviewing how
they can implement laws in light of the federal prohibition. The California
Supreme Court is considering whether the state's Proposition 215 protects
patients who use marijuana from criminal prosecution.

Chronicle political writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report. The
case is U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151.