U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR OAKLAND MEDICINAL POT CASE

OFFICIALS SEEK REVIEW OF CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE, FEDERAL LAWS

Stepping into a national debate, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to
consider a case out of California that might resolve whether marijuana can
be dispensed legally as medicine in the growing number of states that have
approved such use in the face of federal laws that prohibit
drug-trafficking.

Responding to a request from the Clinton administration, the justices agreed
to review an earlier federal appeals court ruling that carved out a
``medical necessity'' exception to federal laws that make it a crime to
distribute marijuana. The high court thus decided to step into a two-year
legal standoff between the U.S. Justice Department and backers of
California's Proposition 215, approved by voters in 1996, which authorized
the use of medicinal pot.

Users of the drug, and doctors who prescribe it, were cautiously optimistic
Monday about the Supreme Court's decision to take the case, affirming their
belief that pot offers real relief to the sickest of the sick. But the
prospect of the nation's highest court taking away their right to use pot
plainly worried some users.

``There is no other alternative for me,'' said Angel Cannistraci, 35, an
Oakland paralegal and medicinal marijuana activist who has been using pot
since 1998 for a pain disorder and anorexia. ``It's not about cannabis; it's
about the patients and what they need to sustain their lives.''

The case to reach the Supreme Court involves the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative. The passage of Proposition 215 prompted a number of clubs to
open their doors to supply pot to seriously ill patients, and Oakland's is
the only Northern California outfit to thus far survive the federal
government's attempt to shut the clubs through a lawsuit. The club has been
ordered to cease supplying medicinal marijuana until the Supreme Court
decides the case, but hopes to gain a favorable ruling that might force law
enforcement officials to back off throughout the state.

``We have faith that when the Supreme Court hears the case on its merits, it
will consider the needs of the patients who are suffering,'' said Jeff
Jones, the club's director. ``We hope it will vindicate California and the
many other states'' that have passed laws like Proposition 215.

While legal experts cautioned that the Supreme Court could take a narrow
approach to the issues in the Oakland case, the justices' decision to review
the matter could have sweeping implications for states that have enacted
medicinal marijuana laws. In addition to California, eight states have
passed such laws: Alaska, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada,
Colorado and Maine.

Since last year, the controlling law for most of those states has been set
by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which shifted the legal momentum
in favor of medicinal pot backers with a key ruling in the Oakland case. In
that ruling, the court held that ``medical necessity'' could trump federal
drug laws and allow distribution of pot to patients facing ``imminent
harm.''

``I don't know whether the Supreme Court taking the case is a bad thing or a
good thing,'' said Dr. Milton Estes, who exclusively treats patients with
HIV and AIDS in San Francisco and Marin County. ``I certainly believe that
marijuana should be available for patients who need it, and that doctors
should have the right to advise patients they might benefit from it.''

Justice Department officials declined comment on Monday's decision by the
Supreme Court. But in court papers filed earlier this year, the government
urged the high court to review the 9th Circuit's ``unprecedented'' ruling,
warning that it would allow the widespread distribution of marijuana and
``promote disrespect and disregard for an act of Congress that is central to
combating illicit drug trafficking.''

The appeals court's finding was considered a watershed break for states
trying to move forward with medicinal marijuana laws. From the beginning,
the laws have been tied up in court and hampered by the simple fact that
while they offer protection to patients, they do not generally provide a
legal mechanism for obtaining marijuana.

Proposition 215, for example, authorized the possession and use of marijuana
with a doctor's recommendation, often for patients with serious,
life-threatening illnesses such as AIDS or cancer. But the law does not say
how those patients can get a drug that is banned by the federal government.
Often depending on where in California a club is located, state and federal
law enforcement officials have made it nearly impossible for cannabis clubs
to distribute pot to patients seeking it under Proposition 215.

In an attempt to establish precedent, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit
in 1998 to shut down six Northern California clubs, arguing that federal law
trumps Proposition 215. Since then, some underground clubs have resurfaced,
but most operators are awaiting the outcome of the court battle.

Clubs have been able to remain open in other parts of the state, notably the
West Hollywood Cannabis Resource Center, while public officials in Mendocino
County have devised narrow ways for patients to obtain the drug there for
medicinal purposes. Voters in that county this fall also approved a local
ballot measure that allows residents to grow marijuana for their own use,
which federal prosecutors have called illegal.

And city officials in Santa Cruz have been friendly to medicinal marijuana,
adopting rules governing the placement of pot clubs, although the city's
largest club closed voluntarily, along with clubs in San Francisco, after
federal law-enforcement officials filed their lawsuit seeking to shut them
down.

Clubs in Ukiah and Fairfax limited their operations in reaction to the suit.
Only Oakland's club elected to fight in court.

That club's fate is now tied up in two different courts. As a result of the
9th Circuit's decision, San Francisco U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
determined that the Oakland club could continue dispensing medicinal pot to
patients who prove they have no legal alternative.

But the Justice Department appealed Breyer's decision all the way to the
Supreme Court, which issued a stay this summer that prevents the club from
selling medicinal pot for now. Even as the Supreme Court weighs the matter,
the 9th Circuit in January is scheduled to once again consider whether the
Oakland club was operating legally, under the guidelines of the earlier
``medical necessity'' ruling.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments next spring on the case it
took up Monday dealing with the medical necessity issue. Only eight justices
will decide the case -- Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself because
Charles Breyer, the district judge presiding over the Oakland lawsuit, is
his brother.

The case will offer the Supreme Court another chance to address an important
dilemma that has confronted the justices often in recent terms -- whether to
side with federal regulatory powers that might intrude on states' rights, or
come down in favor of the states to create laws like Proposition 215.

``The court can reasonably come down either way,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a
University of Southern California law professor. ``I thought the 9th Circuit
came up with a very persuasive accommodation.''

In the meantime, backers of medicinal pot laws are hopeful the Supreme Court
will clear up what has been a legal quagmire. But they also recognize that
the Supreme Court's ruling may just be the first of the legal challenges to
address the conflict between state and federal laws.

``Regardless of what comes out of this, we're still a long way from getting
a definitive answer on how the conflict is going to be resolved,'' said Gina
Pesulima, who represents Americans for Medical Rights, which has backed
medicinal marijuana laws in a number of states. ``But it will provide
clarification, if not a final answer.''