U.S. HIGH COURT TACKLES THORNY TOPIC OF MARIJUANA

Even for the trend-setting California ballot, this was a bold
proposition--to take marijuana, a long-demonized drug, and make it
medicine. Supporters said Proposition 215 would ease the ills of thousands.
Foes predicted chaos for cops, big problems for prosecutors. Both sides, in
the end, were right.

The landmark 1996 ballot measure, which spawned similar laws in eight
states, has left a tangled legacy of uneven enforcement and continual
tug-of-wars over who qualifies for medicinal weed and how it should be
dispensed.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court wades into the thick of it, hearing oral
arguments in a test case of the controversial law.

At issue is distribution of medical pot by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative and other centers that sprouted in California after 56% of the
voters passed Proposition 215. More broadly, the dispute pits a state's
right to legalize marijuana as medicine against federal rules that strictly
prohibit pot.

Medical marijuana boosters hope to convince the high court that patients
facing dire illnesses such as AIDS and cancer might qualify to use pot out
of "medical necessity," an exception, they argue, that trumps the federal
government's zero-tolerance stance on illegal drugs.

Federal prosecutors counter that the nation's narcotics laws leave no such
leeway. The proliferating medical marijuana statutes in states such as
California, they argue, threaten to undermine Congress, unravel the
nation's war on illegal narcotics trafficking and turn cannabis
cooperatives into dangerously unregulated pharmacies for pot.

The high court could decide the case as early as summer, and its opinion
might doom the so-called buyers clubs. Backers of medical pot say a
decision favoring the federal government would severely undermine the law,
closing down an important supply outlet for patients.

It could also chill the medical marijuana movement, both in California and
nationwide. Nine other states are considering legislation embracing medical
marijuana. Half a dozen others are poised to introduce bills advocating
medical marijuana but aren't expected to progress until an outcome is
reached in the Oakland case.

Though lawyers for the Oakland club insist that the essence of state
marijuana laws is not at risk, advocates remain worried about a potentially
sweeping ruling.

"The Supreme Court can say anything they want," said Scott Imler, founder
of the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center, which serves nearly 900
patients in Southern California. "That would be my biggest fear--that in
one big stroke they'd declare these initiatives unconstitutional."

Instead of pursuing individual patients with criminal charges, federal
prosecutors sued the Oakland club and five other medical marijuana
distribution centers in Northern California in January 1998. After a
federal judge ordered the clubs closed, Oakland pushed the case up to the
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In September 1999, a three-judge appellate panel ruled that federal law was
not an absolute barrier if the cannabis centers served a narrowly defined
class of severely ill patients who had exhausted other medical remedies.

Prosecutors appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which signaled its
willingness to overturn the appellate ruling by accepting the case late
last year.

The clubs have support ranging from the California Medical Assn. to
California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who argued in a high court brief that
the justices should respect the traditional state interest in regulating
most issues of health and safety.

Though research into the potential medical benefits of cannabis have been
hindered by a balky and disbelieving federal government, a 1999 report
commissioned by the U.S. drug czar concluded that marijuana eases pain and
quells nausea in cancer patients and others.

But such findings haven't swayed the nation's drug warriors, who largely
see little medical use for the weed.

"It's a smoke screen for the legalization movement, is what it is," said
Bob Hussey, California Narcotics Officers Assn. executive director. "It's
an excuse for a person who is addicted to chemicals to escape the long arm
of the law."

Although the battle over the Oakland club is front and center now, backers
of Proposition 215 insist that for thousands of patients in California the
law is working as intended.

"It's protecting 99% of the medical marijuana users who otherwise would
have to worry about being prosecuted and thrown in prison," said Chuck
Thomas of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.

If the movement has a success story, it's in West Hollywood.

The cooperative run by Imler has managed to skirt shutdowns and build
bridges to local law enforcement. It recently closed a $1.2-million deal to
purchase its 12,000-square-foot headquarters with the help of a loan from
the city of West Hollywood.

Imler credits the center's dogged verification process, which once even
screened out a U.S. drug agent who presented phony papers in an attempt to
infiltrate the club. By ensuring that patients produce recommendations from
bona fide physicians, the group has burnished its credibility.

"As I see it, we're only an interim solution," he said. "The day they make
this available at the pharmacy, we're out of here. I'll go get a life again."

Although the Los Angeles County club has enjoyed relatively gentle
treatment, a raft of problems has dogged Proposition 215 elsewhere,
particularly in smaller counties where patients have resorted to growing
their own.

Scores of patients have been arrested over the years, and at least a dozen
of those have filed civil suits after charges were dropped. In Marin
County, a recall election is scheduled for May against Dist. Atty. Paula
Kamena, who has earned the ire of medical marijuana advocates. Similar
efforts are in the works to bring down prosecutors in five other rural
counties.

The post-Proposition 215 world has been further confused by the crazy quilt
of regulations governing medical marijuana use around the state. In
Mendocino County, a patient can grow upward of two dozen plants. But in
Shasta County, the limit is two. A majority of other counties don't have
any set rules for how much medical marijuana can be cultivated or possessed.

"It has been total chaos," said Hussey of the California Narcotics Officers
Assn. "Law enforcement is working in the blind on this. It's just created
massive confusion, for their side as well."

Hussey said most narcotics officers, while unabashed foes of Proposition
215, would welcome strict guidelines that would allow patients to register
for medicinal use of marijuana--but exclude those "who have to smoke a
joint for their hemorrhoids."

Just such a registration bill by state Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa
Clara) faltered in 1999 after law enforcement and medical marijuana backers
failed to settle their differences. Vasconcellos has reintroduced the bill
and says he likes its chances this year.

Although California was first to sanction marijuana as medicine, several
other states have made greater strides carrying out the electorate's will.

In Maine and Nevada, where voters approved ballot measures over the last
two years, lawmakers are considering bills that would establish
state-sanctioned distribution centers. A bill on the desk of New Mexico
Gov. Gary Johnson would regulate patients' use of marijuana and set up a
cultivation system through the state health department.

A U.S. Supreme Court verdict against the pot clubs, some advocates fear,
could freeze even the most ambitious efforts.

"What it will do is give license to the feds to go after people who use
medical marijuana," said Kate Wells, a Santa Cruz attorney and medical
marijuana advocate. "They'll just drive the whole thing underground again.
And by doing that, they'll bolster the black market. It's just completely
ironic."

Judiciary: California's Proposition 215, which has left a tangled legacy of
confusion and uneven enforcement, spawned a test case that justices will hear.