MARIJUANA GOES TO COURT

Nov. 28, 2000 - Coloradans, along with the voters in eight other states,
will be watching closely as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the contentious
issue of medical marijuana later this term. The nation's highest court
agreed yesterday to review a case out of California, but because the legal
issue there also arises in the other medical marijuana states, the court's
decision is bound to have a broad impact.

California voters approved medical marijuana in 1996, but the U.S. Justice
Department moved quickly to seek an injunction preventing the medical
distribution of marijuana on grounds that federal law makes such drug
distribution and possession a crime.

A district court judge granted an injunction but later the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his action and take into account
whether "medical necessity" was a valid exception to the federal statute.

In something of an unusual move, the court agreed to review this case, even
though it has not fully worked its way through the lower courts. The Clinton
administration has argued that an emergency is present in that the
government's ability to enforce its anti-drug laws has been impaired.

This newspaper opposed the Colorado medical marijuana initiative that was
approved on Nov. 7. We strongly suspect the initiative might well have been
rejected if more voters had clearly understood the likely conflict between
the initiative and existing federal law.

At the heart of the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a
state can carve out what is so far an unrecognized exception to the federal
drug laws. The sponsors of medical marijuana initiatives insist there is a
class of patients who "require" medical marijuana and cannot be properly
treated by other means.

Voters in nine states have bought the argument of the supporters of the
initiative. Congress, in contrast, has decided that marijuana has "no
currently accepted medical use," and it is that view that the U.S. Justice
Department will defend.

In the end, however, what may matter more is the views of the nine justices
who have taken on the task of resolving the conflict between federal and
state law and issuing a decision before July.