STRIKING DOWN MEDICAL MARIJUANA

San Francisco's pro-pot district attorney discusses the long-term
implications of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Tuesday's Supreme Court decision temporarily barring the distribution of
marijuana for medical purposes by an Oakland, Calif., cannabis club was
just the latest twist in a long-running legal battle between pot supporters
in California and the federal government. The conflict stems from the
state's passage in 1996 of Proposition 215, a ballot initiative that
permitted patients with AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and other illnesses to use
marijuana with a doctor's approval. In the wake of the initiative's
passage, pot dispensaries sprang up throughout the state, although federal
authorities forced some of them to close up shop.

Several other states have passed similar measures. Advocates say the drug
relieves pain, helps patients keep medications down and maintains their
strength by boosting their appetite. But marijuana is classified under U.S.
law as a drug that offers no medical benefits. And federal authorities, led
by drug czar Barry McCaffrey, have aggressively opposed the measures,
arguing that loosening the laws on pot will weaken the country's efforts to
fight drug abuse.

The decision Tuesday arose out of the federal government's efforts to shut
down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, along with several other
clubs. After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that
medical necessity could be a valid defense for the use of marijuana, a
lower-court judge determined in July that the Oakland club could once again
dispense marijuana to seriously ill patients. The Justice Department asked
the Supreme Court to issue a stay of that ruling until the case is heard
again on appeal before the 9th Circuit -- after which it will likely end up
right back in front of the justices in Washington.

In a parallel development yesterday, the University of California announced
that it was launching the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research to conduct
studies on the efficacy and safety of the drug. The center is a joint
project of the university's San Diego and San Francisco campuses. The state
has allocated $3 million for the center's first year of operation. The
funds stem from a bill sponsored by state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa
Clara, who is a longtime proponent of the use of medical marijuana.

Like Vasconcellos, San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan has
also been supportive of the issue. He has worked closely with local health
and law enforcement authorities to keep the city's cannabis clubs open so
they can distribute pot to those with a doctor's letter or prescription. In
an interview with Salon this morning, he said that he hopes the federal
government will eventually reclassify marijuana as a drug with medical
potential.

What exactly does this decision mean?

Hopefully it's just a bump in the road, but it seems like a bad omen. They
granted a stay pending a hearing at the Court of Appeals to see where we go
from here. They grant those stays when they feel that something will end up
being decided that way. So it seems that they might reverse the 9th Circuit
and rule that medical necessity is not a defense.

Do you think the federal authorities will now move to shut down the clubs
currently dispensing marijuana?

In the long run this might be tough on the dispensaries you're talking
about. But I think it's premature for the federal government to take some
steps to get them to close down because this is all in process. Hopefully,
everybody will just defer until we get a final decision out of the Supreme
Court. I assume that will take more than a year.

Why do you think the administration is so aggressively opposed to the use
of medical marijuana?

Well, I've tried to talk to [drug czar Barry] McCaffrey about it a couple
of times, and he doesn't even want to hear about it. They just seem adamant
to maintain the status quo in the drug war. And medical marijuana is a
serious challenge to the status quo, in that maybe things are not just
black and white, maybe this is really a medical issue and not a legal
issue. I just think there's a mind-set, the "just-say-no" mentality. And
when you begin to say "maybe," it gets much more complex. What role, if
any, do you see this issue playing in the presidential campaign?

I guess I'll have to wait and see what Gore is going to say, but as far as
anything I've seen, both the Democrats and the Republicans agree with the
present classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug (a drug that has
no medical value). I don't think Gore has made any statements about it. He
has a background. He inhaled, right? Hopefully, he will take a more
enlightened view and position, but of course it's kind of a hot potato, and
politicians don't like hot potatoes. Perhaps he'll avoid making it an issue
during the campaign, but of course it's in the nature of campaigns that
they make people take positions. So keep your fingers crossed.

You've had a good reputation with the advocates of medical marijuana. You
even recently received an award from some of them for your support.

I believe in this. Marijuana has medical properties. I think just about
anybody in San Francisco knows somebody who swears that it has alleviated
their suffering. When I was a member of the Board of Supervisors, I passed
legislation making medical marijuana very low as a priority for law
enforcement, so police officers could turn their back on it when it was a
clear medical case. The local police are well aware of my position and I
think for the most part are in agreement, or at least defer to my position
on it.

Have you received much support from other district attorneys around the state?

Not a lot of support. I think basically people have spent so many years
treating marijuana as a criminal drug that it's difficult for them to
switch their view of it and see that it might have a medical purpose.
They'd have to look back at all the people they've arrested and put in
prison and wonder if they did the right thing. So it's a Catch-22 for most
police officers and prosecutors. If they say now it's legitimate, how do
they justify what they've done in the past?

What about critics who argue that medical marijuana is just a stalking
horse for attempts to legalize it completely?

I don't see it that way. You could say that of any prescribed drug. Medical
marijuana is about making marijuana available to people who have legitimate
medical conditions that a doctor says are alleviated by use of marijuana.
The concern is that the clubs don't just dispense it to people to make
money or for recreational purposes, but that they're doing it on the basis
of a doctor's recommendations. I try my best to encourage them to run the
clubs carefully, and most of them do run it pretty strictly. They're not a
bunch of hippies smoking marijuana. Anytime I have been in one of those
clubs, there's no question in my mind that those are sick people.

Have you found the constituency for medical marijuana to be broader than
just young people?

It's a constituency of sick people. I would say when I visit any of these
clubs to determine how they're operating, it's basically people who have
AIDS and old people who have arthritis or cancer or glaucoma. I've had
numerous people in their 70s and in their 80s say that this works, that it
alleviates the pain. These are people who are certainly not potheads and
would not be expected to use it. To my mind that's the best argument for it.

The University of California on Tuesday announced the creation of a new
research center for studying the effects of medical marijuana. Some
advocates say that there's already enough evidence of its usefulness.
What's your position?

I think more study is needed, because most of the indications now are
aphoristic -- people saying, "It helps me." We don't know medically how
that works. Although I know there are numerous doctors and scientists and
research people who say that it does have these medical qualities, I don't
think they understand exactly what they are yet. And to have a legitimate
medical usage, you should understand how it works. If it alleviates
suffering for people who are seriously ill, with the minimal side effects
that it has, and a doctor supervising it, I think that's fine. But I also
encourage more study.