SUPREME COURT REJECTS MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE

Critics Call Ruling Uncaring

People who use marijuana for medical purposes are not exempt from federal
laws that prohibit its use, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

The justices, in an 8-0 opinion, said that Congress specifically stated in
federal drug laws that there is "no accepted medical use" for marijuana.

The decision also effectively prohibits individuals arrested for marijuana
possession from telling juries that they used it because they were sick and
that the drug made them feel better.

Legal experts said that the ruling undermines recently passed laws in nine
states. Those states allow, with doctor approval, patients to use marijuana
to deal with the side effects of some cancer treatments, for example, or to
help reduce pain.

Supporters of marijuana use for medical purposes decried the court's ruling
as uncaring and unacceptable and promised to continue the fight.

"We are very disappointed that the justices did not consider the desperate
medical needs of some of the citizens of this country," said Jeffrey Jones,
director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, one of six California
groups created after the state's voters approved legalizing medicinal use
of marijuana in 1996.

Lawyers for the cooperative argued that groups such as theirs should be
allowed to distribute marijuana to people with a doctor's prescription.
They also said that those patients arrested for possessing marijuana should
be allowed to use "medical necessity" as a legal defense.

But the justices rejected both claims.

"It is clear from the Controlled Substance Act that Congress made a
determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an
exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. "Unwilling to view this omission
as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative
determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument."

While the justices were uncharacteristically unanimous in declaring that
federal law clearly prohibited the cannabis groups from distributing the
drug, the court was split 5-3 over whether patients facing criminal
possession charges could use a medical condition as a defense.

Justice Thomas said that such a defense is not acceptable and should not be
allowed. Siding with Justice Thomas were Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that he could see circumstances when such
medical use should be allowed. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg agreed. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the case
because his brother was the federal judge in California who heard the
original argument.

Several legal experts said the court's decision on the cannabis
distribution was not a surprise, They said that the court has given wide
latitude to Congress and the president to establish and enforce public
policy regarding drug use.

However, some legal scholars were taken aback that the justices went on to
prohibit criminal defendants in marijuana cases from telling juries why
they were using the drug.

"This ruling is actually a direct assault on people's constitutional right
to tell the jury their side of the case and have a jury of their peers
decide the case," said Ronald Smith, chairman of the American Bar
Association's Criminal Justice Section.

Mr. Smith, a law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said the
result of the decision is that very few trial judges will allow sick
defendants to tell jurors about their illnesses and how marijuana helps them.

Monday's decision does not literally overturn state laws and voter's
initiatives approved in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Those states have effectively granted
immunity to seriously ill people from prosecution of state drug laws.

Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may
address the issue later this year. A measure to counter laws such as
California's died in the House last year. Even though federal prosecutors
and investigators seldom use their resources to target individual marijuana
users, legal experts say the true influence of the court's decision will be
seen in the possible elimination of the cannabis groups.

"Without the cannabis as my true lifesaver, I will literally die," said
Angel McClary, a 34-year-old Oakland mother who uses marijuana regularly to
ease side effects from a brain tumor and from seizures. "This is about real
people who are really sick and really dying, and I find it outrageous that
the Supreme Court is telling me that me and my doctor do not know what's
best for my medical condition."