MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA ILLEGAL, SUPREME COURT RULES

The Decision Does Not Directly Invalidate "Medical Marijuana' Laws In Nine
States, But It Will Limit Their Impact

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law bars the
distribution of marijuana even to people who say they must have it to
alleviate symptoms of serious illness, dealing a setback to the movement
for "medical marijuana" laws and limiting the impact of state laws already
on the books.

Ruling 8-0 in a case involving a California "cannabis cooperative" that
supplied the drug to patients suffering from cancer, AIDs and other
illnesses, the court said federal anti-drug law allows no "medical
necessity" exception to the general prohibition on selling or growing
marijuana.

Federal law "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical
benefits worthy of an exception," the court said in an opinion written by
Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld federal authorities' ability to
obtain a court order to shut down the cooperative.

The ruling does not directly invalidate "medical marijuana" laws on the
books in nine states, mostly in the West. Those states remain free to
choose not to prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes, and
the federal government rarely prosecutes individuals for marijuana use.

However, in those states, the ruling is likely to doom large, public
distribution centers -- confining the use of "medical marijuana" to
private, small-scale settings outside the usual scope of federal
enforcement efforts.

In addition, the court may have deterred additional states from joining the
"medical marijuana" movement, which appeared to be gaining popular
acceptance in recent years.

"The Supreme Court's 8-0 decision is a strong endorsement of congressional
legislation banning marijuana production and distribution under federal
law," said Barry McCaffrey, who served as federal drug czar during the
Clinton administration.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that the ruling was
"unfortunate" and that "the responsibility for determining what is
necessary to provide for public health and safety has traditionally been
left to the states."

Chuck Thomas, communications director of the Marijuana Policy Project,
which lobbies for medical marijuana laws, said, "My two biggest fears are
that it will be somewhat more inconvenient for medical marijuana users . .
. and that next year state legislators will say, "Oh, no, now we can't pass
a new state law.' "

Supporters of medical marijuana say the drug is often the only relief for
cancer patients experiencing excruciating pain or AIDS patients feeling
crippling nausea. Some anorexics have used marijuana to maintain their
appetites.

Opponents, however, say that there are abundant legal alternatives,
including a synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana and that
the medical marijuana movement's real goal is de facto legalized marijuana
for recreational use.

The issue forces national politicians to balance their reluctance to appear
soft on drugs against the fact that state voters have recently expressed
sympathy for what medical marijuana advocates call the "compassionate use"
of the drug.

As a candidate last year, President Bush expressed sympathy for states'
rights to devise their own marijuana policies at variance with the federal
approach. When the case was argued before the Supreme Court in March, Bush
issued a statement expressing his personal opposition to medical marijuana
laws, and expressing support for the Justice Department's position in the
case, which was initiated under President Clinton.

The case centered on the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, one of
several "cannabis clubs" that sprang up after California voters approved a
referendum in 1996 permitting people with notes from their doctors to use
marijuana.

Choosing not to prosecute the club in a state where a criminal trial jury
would be drawn from the same population that had voted in favor of medical
marijuana, the Clinton Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an
injunction closing the Buyers' Cooperative -- which he did in 1998.

That judge, Charles Breyer, is the brother of Justice Stephen G. Breyer,
who accordingly recused himself from the matter when it came to the Supreme
Court.

The cooperative appealed to the West Coast-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, which ordered Judge Breyer to rewrite his order to permit the
cooperative to continue distributing marijuana to those who could prove
that it was a "medical necessity."

Arguing that this could create a massive loophole in federal drug laws, the
Clinton administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued its own
order last August keeping the cooperative shut until it could decide the case.

In a concurring opinion Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by
Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with Thomas'
opinion but expressed concern that it may have been too sweeping.

"Most notably, whether the (medical necessity) defense might be available
to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no other means of avoiding
starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not
presented here," Stevens wrote.

In addition, Stevens said, "The overbroad language of the court's opinion
is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the
sovereign states that comprise our federal Union."

"We share Justice Stevens' concern," Thomas replied. "However . . . because
federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we
are not at liberty to rewrite it."