U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

State's Prop. 215 vs. Federal Drug Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to hear a medical marijuana case
from California, wading into the turbulent crosscurrents of the
drug-legalization debate.

The justices agreed to hear a case pitting federal drug laws, which
prohibit the distribution of marijuana, against California's Proposition
215, which allows the cultivation and use of marijuana for some medical
conditions when the drug is recommended by a doctor.

The proposition was approved by voters in 1996.

But the state measure is vague on several key points -- such as how much
marijuana a person can legally possess, or how someone can legally obtain
marijuana -- and has been caught up in legal disputes over its implementation.

Counties are interpreting the law in different ways, leaving patients,
prosecutors and growers clamoring for guidelines.

The legal questions involved have been exemplified in the case of a
Hillcrest cannabis club, which has been in and out of San Diego Superior
Court over its efforts to provide marijuana to the seriously ill.

San Diego experts on both sides of the Proposition 215 debate welcomed the
court's decision to hear its first medical marijuana case, but held out
little hope that any decision would solve the problems of enforcing the
state law.

The case the high court will hear involves a battle over the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Club.

In January 1998, the federal government filed a lawsuit against the club,
asking a judge to ban it from providing marijuana.

Federal Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary order imposing such a
ban. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Breyer, saying the
government did not disprove the club's evidence that the drug was "the only
effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals."

The appeals court ruled that medical necessity could be a viable defense to
a charge of distributing drugs in violation of federal law.

In July, Breyer complied and issued a new order allowing the Oakland group
to provide marijuana to patients who need it and who face "imminent harm"
if they do not get access to marijuana.

The Justice Department then appealed that order to the Supreme Court.

In their argument, Justice Department lawyers said the appeals court
"seriously erred" in deciding the federal law allowed a medical-necessity
defense.

The Oakland club's lawyers argued that "the voters of California have
spoken" in approving the medical-marijuana measure. Congress has not
explicitly barred a medical-necessity defense against the federal anti-drug
law, the lawyers added.

But the Supreme Court's ruling likely will not have a great impact on the
problems associated with Proposition 215, according to one lawyer involved
in a medical marijuana case here.

"I don't think it will have any effect at all as far as clearing up the
areas of controversy we have (with Proposition 215)," said Michael McCabe.
McCabe is a San Diego defense lawyer who represents the operators of the
medical marijuana club in Hillcrest that police shut down in April,
allegedly for operating outside the protections of Proposition 215.

That case illustrates the confusion in the courts and law enforcement over
the law.

The charges were thrown out by a Superior Court judge, who said the
defendants tried to comply with the law. The judge described the law as
hopelessly "botched up." The charges were later reinstated by another judge.

McCabe said the case before the Supreme Court tackles the narrow issue of
"medical necessity" as a legitimate legal defense. The problems with the
state law are much broader, he said.

Deputy District Attorney David Lattuca said, "Any clarification is going to
be helpful." But he agreed there are conflicts in the law beyond what the
Supreme Court will address.

For example, Proposition 215 allows medical use of marijuana, but other
laws prohibit the sale and possession of the drug.

He said the state Legislature must clarify the ambiguities in the law, and
that a decision by the Supreme Court might spur that process.

"They may very well give us all direction on marijuana that can be lawfully
distributed to people who are using it for a medical necessity," he said.
"But I think we're still looking ultimately for the state Legislature to
write something."

The debate over medical marijuana has grown steadily over the years. Nine
states, including California, have medical marijuana laws in place that
were approved by voters.

In other cases, the high court:

- - Agreed to use the case of a death-row inmate from Texas, whose lawyers
say is mentally retarded, to clarify how much opportunity jurors in
death-penalty cases must have to consider the defendant's mental capacity.

- - Heard arguments on how to judge when race plays too large a role in
drawing election districts. The North Carolina case is a follow-up to the
justices' landmark 1993 ruling that election districts drawn to help
minorities might violate white voters' rights.

- - Said it will use a dispute over health-care benefits paid to a man
injured in a car accident to clarify whether health plans can sue to
enforce some requirements. A California company says it can sue in federal
court to force a man to give back his health benefits because he later got
payment from another source.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.