COURT REJECTS MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

Federal Law Trumps States

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major defeat to medical marijuana
users Monday, ruling 8-0 that federal law prohibits organizations
from growing and distributing the weed.

The ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that medical
organizations are barred from giving marijuana to seriously ill
patients because federal law provides no exception for "medical
necessity" and science fails to define marijuana as a medication.

Jeff Jones, head of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in
California, called the ruling "heavy handed and misguided."

The court ruling is intended to shut down his cooperative, as well as
other so-called medical marijuana buyers' clubs.

In a news conference after the ruling, Jones did not specify that he
would shut down his operation. But he accused the court of giving
patients "no alternative as to where to get their medicine ...
outside of the streets."

Attorney General John Ashcroft described the ruling as a victory for
U.S. drug enforcement laws and said it clearly "reaffirms the federal
government's pre-eminent role in regulating controlled substances."

Ashraf Mozayani, chief toxicologist and lab director for the Harris
County medical examiner's office, said the ruling was "really great
news."

She called marijuana an unsafe drug that alters one's state of mind
and behavior. Mozayani said she sees too many drug-related accidents
or homicides and believes tougher drug laws are needed, not
exceptions to those laws.

Some doctors believe marijuana effectively helps treat glaucoma,
cancer and AIDS and that it alleviates pain and nausea brought on by
chemotherapy and other treatments.

But the high court rejected the argument for medical necessity
concessions because Congress placed the government's strictest
controls on the growing and distribution of marijuana.

Laws in nine states -- Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- recognize, to varying
degrees, certain protections for the medicinal use of marijuana.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court
leaves intact state laws that protect medical marijuana users from
state and local prosecution, even if the ruling seeks to shut down
the growers and distributors. However, it does mean that anyone
distributing or using the drug for medical purposes in those states
is open to prosecution under federal law.

In 1998, the federal government sought to close the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers' Cooperative and five other organizations like it in
California on charges that they violated federal drug laws.

Jones, a Christian conservative, said he opened the cooperative after
watching his father die of kidney cancer. He said he has been helping
patients under doctors' care obtain safe supplies of what is
popularly known as "pot."

He refused to shut down in 1998, arguing that his organizations'
activities were protected by California state law that was enacted in
1996 after voters approved Proposition 215. It allows the cultivation
and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Jones said he will
continue to fight the court's ruling by using, for example, a state's
right to write its own commerce laws.

But the Supreme Court's ruling was a substantial blow to states'
rights in fashioning independent marijuana distribution laws.

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical
benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote for the court. The law
"provides only one ... exception to the prohibitions on manufacturing
and distributing the drug: government-approved research projects."

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

The remaining three justices -- David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
John Paul Stevens -- also concurred but wrote a separate opinion
because they said Thomas' was too broad.

Stevens wrote "the court reaches beyond its holding, and beyond the
facts of the case" by suggesting that "medical necessity" may never
be used as an argument to get around the country's strict drug laws.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the ruling. His
brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco,
initially presided over the dispute.

Keith Vines, a former Air Force captain turned San Francisco
prosecutor, called Monday "a sad day."

AIDS symptoms that killed his appetite has been reversed by "a few
puffs" of marijuana a day, he said, because it has allowed him to eat
enough to maintain a healthy weight.

Doctors initially put Vines on a pill approved by the Food and Drug
Administration that contains many properties of marijuana. But Vines
said he was unable to use it because "it was too strong."

Meanwhile, opponents of medical marijuana believe such sentiments are
cover for a broader political agenda, which includes the eventual
legalization of marijuana, even for recreational use.

"The science just isn't there to back up those claims," said David
Evans, a New Jersey attorney who represented roughly 50 groups
nationwide in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that outlined
the legal and medical problems associated with legalizing marijuana
for medical use.

"We're very pleased that the court saw through this scam," he said Monday.