MEDICAL-MARIJUANA USE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Justices to hear administration's bid to prevent group from providing pot
to the seriously ill

WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court entered the debate over medical marijuana
yesterday, agreeing to decide whether the drug can be provided to patients
out of ``medical necessity'' even though federal law makes its distribution
a crime.

The justices said they will hear the Clinton administration's effort to bar
a California group from providing the drug to seriously ill patients for
pain and nausea relief.

A lower court decision allowing the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to
distribute the drug ``threatens the government's ability to enforce the
federal drug laws,'' government lawyers said.

But the California group says that for some patients, marijuana is ``the
only medicine that has proven effective in relieving their conditions or
symptoms.''

The group's lawyer, Annette P. Carnegie, said yesterday the federal
Controlled Substances Act does not prohibit the distribution of marijuana
for medical reasons.

``Those choices, we believe, are best made by physicians and not by the
government,'' she said. Marijuana has been effective in relieving nausea in
cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, weight loss in HIV-positive
patients and in reducing pain, she said.

Eight states in addition to California have medical-marijuana laws in place
or approved by voters: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington,
Nevada and Colorado. Residents of Washington, D.C., voted in 1998 to allow
the medical use of marijuana, but Congress blocked the measure from
becoming law.

Justice Department lawyers said Congress has decided that marijuana has
``no currently accepted medical use.''

In August, the Supreme Court barred the California organization from
distributing marijuana while the government pursued its appeal.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate in the case. His brother,
Charles, a federal trial judge in San Francisco, previously barred
distribution of marijuana only to have his decision reversed by a federal
appeals court.

The Supreme Court also agreed yesterday to hear an appeal by a condemned
killer from Texas whose lawyers say he is mentally retarded. The court said
it will use the case of Johnny Paul Penry to clarify how much opportunity
jurors in death-penalty cases must have to consider the defendant's mental
capacity.

In other action, the court:

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. The justices are expected to issue a decision
by July that could affect the racial makeup of voting districts nationwide.

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.

Turned down a challenge by South Carolina gambling operators against the
state's new ban on possession of video gambling machines. The gambling
operators said the ban amounted to the government's unlawful taking of
their property without payment.