SUPREME COURT HEARING ON MARIJUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZATION, CNNFN

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNNfn ANCHOR, STREET SWEEP: The Supreme Court is now
considering a case that will determine whether marijuana should be legally
prescribed for medical purposes. A final ruling is expected by June. Right
now, eight states allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Some
patients and doctors say marijuana helps combat symptoms of various
ailments, and is much cheaper and more effective than other types of
treatments.

Joining us right now from Washington to discuss the issue, and the economic
impact of medical marijuana, Chuck Thomas, he's communication's director of
Marijuana Policy Project, advocating its medical use. And, Congressman Bob
Barr, Republican from Georgia who says cannabis should be banned.

Congressman, let's start with you. And what is your impression -- what do
you think the Supreme Court is going to decide? We had the hearing this
morning, and it seems the conservative court is perhaps a little bit
skeptical here?

REP. ROBERT BARR (R) GEORGIA: Of course, the issue before the Supreme Court
is a very narrow one. I don't think they're going to directly address the
underlying issue of marijuana. They will focus on whether or not federal
law will continue to prevail, and whether or not a state can override
federal law. I don't think the Supreme Court will agree with that, so I
think that they will reverse the lower court's opinion, which had seemed to
open the door to the so-called "medicinal use of marijuana" in California.

CHERNOFF: That's right. This case has gone back and forth, back and forth.
Originally, it was turned down. An appeals court actually gave the
OK. Now, the Supreme Court is left making the decision. And let's move
over to Chuck Thomas and ask you exactly what do you expect that we're
going to hear from the Supreme Court? You heard what the congressman had
to say.

CHUCK THOMAS, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT: Sure. Well, the Supreme Court is
not challenging the right of a state to remove criminal penalties on the
state level for patients who are growing or using their own medical
marijuana, if their doctors recommend it. All the Supreme Court will decide
is, under federal law, if the federal government arrests a marijuana
distributor, and tries the case in federal court, if the distributor is
serving only patients, is the person allowed to use a "medical necessity"
defense just to present the facts to the judge and the jury, that they were
serving only seriously ill people with their doctor's approval, and allow
the judge and jury to take that into account?

So we hope that the Supreme Court will rule to at least allow people to
make that defense. But even if they don't, there will still continue to be
tens of thousands of people nationwide using medical marijuana, and in the
states, California and the other seven states that have removed criminal
penalties for these people, they will continue to be allowed to use medical
marijuana under state law, which is where 99 percent of marijuana arrests
take place, at the state level.

So really, nothing will change in terms of individual patients being able
to grow and use medical marijuana without going to prison. This will only
deal with the federal law, and with the narrow issue of medical necessity
defense for distribution.

CHERNOFF: Now, let's keep in mind, this is not a situation where we have
hospitals necessarily buying the product for patient - rather, we just
showed some video of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. And
Congressman Barr, let me ask you, do you have a problem with this type of a
cooperative buying for the purpose of medical treatment?

BARR: First of all, there's no such thing as "medical marijuana;" there is
marijuana. And that's fundamentally what we're talking about. They have
put the word "medical" in front of it to make it appear benign-to put a
kind and gentle face on it. And that is why they have been so successful,
they've changed tactics - that is the drug legalizers I'm speaking of here
- - they've changed tactics in recent years. They've become very clever, very
smart. They realize that if they just put their drug use out there, as
they have done in the past, and said, legalize marijuana, they were going
to lose. But if they call it something different, so-called "medical
marijuana," then it all of a sudden appears to legitimate.

No, I don't favor it in a way, shape or form, and I don't think that the
Supreme Court will allow an individual state, even if it wants to legalize
marijuana, to say that that means the federal government can continue to
enforce federal drug laws.

CHERNOFF: Congressman Barr, what about cancer patients for example, who
have chronic pain, and say that the marijuana actually helps them to deal
with their pain? You're saying, they should not be allowed to use it?

BARR: I do think they should not be allowed to use it-- because you get
yourself on a very slippery slope here. And plus the fact, even though the
drug legalizers come up with their own studies from time to time that show
that people like to use marijuana - no surprise there certainly - the fact
is that doctor after doctor after doctor has told us, and testified before
the Congress, that there are other substitutes that can do a better job of
this, without -- well hold on -- without all of the side effects, such as
memory loss, reproductive destruction, and destroying your immune system,
that comes with smoking marijuana.

THOMAS: I'd like to point out that, of all the amicus briefs filed in the
Supreme Court case, the health and medical groups only filed on behalf of
the medical marijuana distributors. There weren't any health or medical
groups filing briefs on behalf of the government's position. We had the
California Medical Association, Nurses Associations, American Public Health
Association, various AIDS groups - all kinds of health and medical
groups. The attorney general of California even filed a brief on behalf of
medical marijuana distribution.

So this is clearly an issue where doctors and patients - the patients that
we represent; the patients that I have seen using medical marijuana, that I
know that they are using it because they have their doctor's approval -
these people are the ones who are advocating for medical marijuana. We're
trying to help them and then we're being broadcast as some sort of a
conspiracy of some sort. When you really look at what happens-- in Oregon,
for example, that has a favorable medical marijuana law, there are 600
doctors registered with the state as medical marijuana people-- doctors who
have approved medical marijuana for patients in the state of Oregon, in the
small state of Oregon.

CHERNOFF: Sorry to interrupt you -

THOMAS: Sure.

CHERNOFF: But we are actually running out of time.

THOMAS: OK.

CHERNOFF: Mr. Thomas and Congressman Barr, thank you very much for joining
us; appreciate it.

THOMAS: Thank you.