POT CASE BEFORE JUSTICES

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a case brought by the
Clinton administration to stop a California group from distributing
"medical marijuana," which some patients say alleviates their suffering but
which the federal government considers an illegal substance with no
therapeutic value.

In a separate order, the court agreed to hear an appeal from a condemned
killer in Texas whose lawyers say he is mentally retarded and should not be
executed.

The case of Johnny Paul Penry might provide the court with a way to clarify
how much information a jury in a death penalty case must have about a
defendant's mental capacity. Penry's lawyers maintain that their client has
an IQ of about 60. Prosecutors contend that Penry is not retarded, but
ignorant.

In the marijuana case, the Clinton administration is seeking to stop the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative from selling small bags of marijuana to
patients, who say the drug helps them with pain and nausea and eases the
symptoms of illnesses such as glaucoma.

In the past four years, nine states have passed medical marijuana laws:
California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
Colorado.

California's law, passed by a wide margin of voters, legalizes the
possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor's
recommendation. Physicians cannot legally prescribe marijuana, and the law
left murky how patients would procure the drug.

The case against the Oakland cannabis cooperative does not directly address
the constitutionality of the state medical marijuana laws, but instead
focuses on a narrower question: Is "medical necessity" a defense against
violating federal laws that prohibit the distribution of marijuana?

"This case is directed toward that one very specific question," said Gina
Pesulima of Americans for Medical Rights, which has sponsored most of the
medical marijuana ballot initiatives. Pesulima said the case does not
address the legality of patients possessing or using marijuana.

But if the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative prevails in arguing that
medical necessity shields distributors from prosecution, Pesulima said her
group--backed by millions of dollars in support from international
financier George Soros and his partners--will press for state or municipal
governments to play a role in distribution of medical marijuana.

Since the passage of the medical marijuana ballot initiatives, the federal
government has focused most of its attention not on individual patients
smoking or ingesting marijuana, but on buyer's clubs and cooperatives set
up to procure, grow and distribute the drug.

Lawyers with the Justice Department argue that the distribution of medical
marijuana violates the federal Controlled Substances Act, which includes
marijuana among the drugs whose manufacture and distribution are prohibited.

Voters have repeatedly told pollsters that they generally support allowing
sick and dying people to use marijuana if it offers relief.

But many physicians believe there are better legal drugs available to do
what marijuana's advocates claim it can do. Large studies, however, have
not been undertaken.

Also Monday, the court:

* Turned down a challenge by South Carolina gambling operators against the
state's new ban on possession of video gambling machines.

* Heard oral arguments in a case that seeks to determine 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.

Washington Post