MAINE AWAITS DRUG RULING

WASHINGTON -- Two Maine officials are hoping to influence the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling in a California case that could decide the fate
of medical marijuana laws nationwide.

Cumberland County Sheriff Mark Dion and state Sen. Anne Rand,
D-Portland, have filed a joint legal brief supporting the use of
marijuana by patients in California who suffer debilitating and
life-threatening illnesses.

The two are public supporters of Maine's medical marijuana law,
adopted in 1999. Their involvement in the California case shows that
the high-court decision is expected to have far-reaching effects.

California, Maine and six other states have laws that allow for the
use of medical marijuana, but implementing those measures has posed
major problems.

In the California case, the justices are being asked to rule on the
legality of a state law that approves the distribution of a drug
Congress outlawed.

"They're going to have to decide whether states can set their own
health policy," Dion said. "I think it's important that we recognize
that marijuana has certain medical benefits for members of the community."

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last month, Dion, Rand and
advocates from other states argued that "these initiatives (state laws
supporting medical marijuana use) pose no serious conflict with
federal law." They argue that it is wrong to "punish individuals who
are seriously ill for availing themselves of relief from pain" by
smoking marijuana. Ruling likely by June Oral arguments in the
California case start March 28; a ruling is expected by June.

A negative ruling effectively could overturn all initiatives by states
that allow seriously ill patients to possess and smoke marijuana to
relieve pain and nausea - typically from AIDS or chemotherapy
treatment for cancer.

Observers note that the court could choose instead to set rules on how
to distribute the drug.

In Maine, Rep. Thomas Shields, an Auburn Republican, is on a state
task force to develop rules for distributing the drug. "We'd like to
hold off any decisions until we see what the Supreme Court does with
Oakland because it's so similar," said Shields, a physician.

Advocates of Maine's law estimate that perhaps 400 patients in the
state could benefit from using marijuana to ease the nausea and pain
caused by life-threatening or debilitating illnesses.

Patients such as Robin Lambert of Portland have received notes from
their physicians stating that the use of medical marijuana has been
discussed as a source of pain relief.

Lambert mixes himself a cocktail of drugs to fend off AIDS and
predatory diseases threatening his life.

His regimen includes Videx crackers. The medicinal wafers, which are
smaller than Ritz crackers, help a patient's immune system. After
breakfast Lambert takes three different pills that also bolster his
immune system as well as fight off pneumonia. One of the pills,
Kaletra, resembles an orange gummy bear but has a fierce taste.

To avoid throwing up the medicine, which costs $2,000 a month, Lambert
relieves his nausea by smoking marijuana.

"They're not going to frighten us into not using medicinal marijuana,"
said Lambert, 50, a former human-resources official. "If states stick
to their guns, they'll win eventually."

Advocates seem to support his position.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws Foundation, argues that 600 years of
common law support unconventional treatment as a "medical necessity"
when officially sanctioned medicines don't work. 'A huge, huge
setback' But he said a loss at the high court "would be a huge, huge
setback" for medical marijuana advocates in states like Maine.

Medical marijuana opponents, including the Family Research Council,
argue that marijuana is harmful both as an addictive hallucinogen and
as a steppingstone to worse drugs. Such opponents say the California
case should serve as a barricade against efforts to legalize marijuana.

"The scientific evidence is very clear: it's an addictive substance, a
very dangerous substance," said Robert Maginnis, the Family Research
Council's vice president for national security and foreign policy.

Jay McCloskey, Maine's outgoing U.S. Attorney, fought the state's
referendum and maintained that weakening laws against marijuana would
confuse youths about the drug's illegality.

Like the Family Research Council that quotes him in its brief to the
high court, McCloskey argues that using marijuana makes it easier to
move on to cocaine and heroin.

"In my view marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to more serious
drug use," he said.

California's case grew out of a refedendum that voters approved in
1996 allowing patients to use marijuana after consulting with their
doctors.

Six so-called "cannabis clubs" were created to distribute the drug.
Federal lawyers sued to shut down the clubs, including the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. 'Cannabis clubs' closed A U.S. District
Court judge agreed to close the clubs. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned that decision, saying the government had not
refuted evidence that "cannabis is medically necessary for a group of
seriously ill individuals."

Government lawyers have maintained that the 1970 Controlled Substances
Act flatly classified marijuana as illegal to "manufacture, distribute
or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense."

Congress placed the drug in a category that can't be prescribed by a
doctor, ruling that marijuana has no "currently accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States" and no "accepted safety for use
under medical supervision," according to government lawyers.

"Until the federal government comes to the table, it puts the
physicians at some risk," said Gordon Smith, executive director of the
Maine Medical Association.

Smith's group opposed the referendum, but now educates doctors about
how to answer questions from patients. Smith said three doctors have
asked for advice, but that others in specialties such as oncology and
neurology might be familiar enough with the issues to deal with them
on their own.

Smith said doctors also have concerns about the way the drug was
approved.

"They are somewhat uncomfortable with the public approving drugs by
referendum," Smith said. "It is kind of bizarre."

The proposal, voted on in 1999, won more than 60 percent of the
vote.

The law allows a patient to get a note from a doctor saying the two
have discussed the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana. The patient is
allowed to possess six plants or 10 ounces of marijuana.

Lambert says he buys his marijuana but says patients in worse physical
condition may have trouble getting out and finding a source for the
drug.

Qualifying illnesses include AIDS-related symptoms of nausea and
wasting away, spasticity such as multiple sclerosis, neurological
problems such as epilepsy, and glaucoma.

Marijuana is supposed to be used only after similar drugs available by
prescription, including a pill version of the active ingredient in
marijuana, fail.

Doctors Remain Leery

Doctors, however, have been leery of participating because of uncertainty
about how the federal law will be enforced.

Even with a doctor's help, an unresolved question in Maine is how to
get the marijuana to patients who need it. Patients must now buy the
drug on the black market from dealers who risk imprisonment. Patients
who are paralyzed or otherwise unable to roll their own joints need
help from relatives or friends.

A state task force has studied how to set up a state-sanctioned
distribution system. Rand proposed legislation to allow a nonprofit
company to grow marijuana in a single plot for statewide distribution.
Task force participants are meeting Monday in Augusta to discuss the
measure.

But Dion is worried about taking that path, which could invite more
federal intervention. He suggested allowing patients to grow marijuana
themselves - after registering with the state to avoid police searches
and arrests.

Because the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, advocates on both
sides acknowledged that the court could overturn all the state programs.

"It could stop what's happening in Maine," Maginnis said.

Supporters of the initiative hope the Supreme Court will focus
entirely on how to grow and distribute marijuana, rather than
abolishing the program entirely. The court could, for example, allow
the use of marijuana only after all other medical options are
exhausted, which could be prohibitive.

"I think if there is a victory, it could be on the hollow side," St.
Pierre said.

Elizabeth Beane, director of Mainers for Medical Rights, the group
that campaigned for the initiative, said she would try to create a
distribution program that fits whatever rules the Supreme Court sets.
Whatever the court decides, she doesn't expect it to overturn the
referendum's result.

"People," she said, "would be really ripped if the referendum is
attacked."