HIGH COURT BARS POT DISTRIBUTION FOR MEDICAL USES

Law: Emergency order stops California clubs from legally giving marijuana
to those who are ill or in pain.

Ruling is seen as a signal that justices will overturn the state statute.

WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred Californians from legally
giving marijuana to people who are sick and in pain. The emergency order
halts, at least for now, a San Francisco judge's decree handed down last
month that cleared the way for distributing cannabis to those for whom it
is a "medical necessity."

Nearly four years ago, California voters defied the federal government's
zero-tolerance policy on drugs and approved a measure that allowed
seriously ill patients to obtain marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
Since then, private clubs, growers and some local jurisdictions have
distributed the drug to people who demonstrated a medical need.

While Tuesday's order may not immediately shut down these operations, it
sends a strong signal that the Supreme Court is likely to formally
invalidate California's medical marijuana law, as well as similar measures
in seven other states.

Under the court's rules, the justices intervene in a pending case only when
they are likely to take up the underlying issue and reverse the lower court
ruling. U.S. authorities maintain that federal anti-drug laws forbid the
distribution of marijuana in all instances, and they say that states have
no leeway to adopt other policies.

They sought a test case in Northern California three years ago, and the
legal battle reached the high court for the first time this month.

Medical marijuana laws have proliferated in the West. Alaska, Arizona,
Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have passed measures similar
to California's, although

Nevada must approve its constitutional amendment again for it to become
law. Medical marijuana advocates called the Supreme Court's temporary order
"a step backward for the cause." Some said that they did not expect the
government to shut down cannabis clubs now.

"This is about more than just marijuana," said Dennis Peron, chief author
of California's Proposition 215. "It's political. It's about the Supreme
Court interfering with states' rights.

Because states like California have a right to legalize marijuana." Peron's
San Francisco medical marijuana club was closed by a federal court in 1998.

U.S. attorneys have not sought to enforce the hard-line policy by bringing
criminal charges against people who freely distribute "medical" marijuana
in California. Instead, they filed a civil suit seeking a federal court
order that made it illegal for so-called cannabis clubs to operate.

At first they succeeded. In May 1998, U.S. District Judge Charles R.
Breyer, a new Clinton appointee and the brother of Supreme Court Justice
Stephen G. Breyer, handed down the order sought by federal authorities. It
barred the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative from "engaging in the
manufacture or distribution of marijuana."

Under Proposition 215 of 1996, the Compassionate Use Act, nonprofit groups,
such as the Oakland cooperative, were authorized to distribute marijuana to
patients who had authorization from doctors. Patients suffering from cancer
or AIDS have found marijuana helpful in alleviating pain and nausea and
stimulating appetite.

Appellate Court Grants Waiver

Lawyers for the Oakland group challenged the first ruling and won a
reversal last year from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a key
ruling last September, the appellate court said that the nation's anti-drug
laws can be waived in cases of "medical necessity." This ruling cleared the
way for the distribution of marijuana "to seriously ill individuals who
need cannabis for medical purposes."

When the case returned to Judge Breyer, he issued a new order on July 20
authorizing the Oakland cooperative to begin legal distribution of
cannabis. Wasting no time, the Justice Department first petitioned the
Supreme Court to take up the 9th Circuit's ruling. And two weeks ago, it
asked the high court to issue an emergency order blocking Breyer's decree.

Allowing the legal distribution of marijuana, even for medical purposes,
will "promote disrespect and disregard" for federal drug laws, U.S.
Solicitor General Seth Waxman said in his request.

On Tuesday, the justices, on a 7-1 vote, granted the order and blocked the
Oakland cooperative from distributing cannabis.

As is typical, the court did not explain its order. However, Justice John
Paul Stevens, the lone dissenter, said the government had "failed to
demonstrate that the denial of necessary medicine to seriously ill and
dying patients will advance the public interest or . . . impair the orderly
enforcement of federal criminal statutes."

Justice Breyer, not surprisingly, recused himself. Late next month, when
the justices formally convene, they will take up the government's appeal of
the 9th Circuit ruling in the case (United States vs. Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Cooperative, 00-151).

The court likely will agree to hear oral arguments on the matter later in
the term. However, Tuesday's brief order suggests that the justices lean
strongly in the government's favor.

Activists insist that the Food and Drug Administration has wrongly
characterized marijuana as a Schedule-1, or highly dangerous, drug.

"These justices are going to have to come to grips with the fact that this
drug has been demonized and not properly scheduled. Aspirin is not on the
list, and people use it for pain as well."

Peron, who still cultivates marijuana at a Northern California farm for use
by medical pot users, said he is not sure whether the court's order would
mean immediate closure of the state's two dozen cannabis clubs.

"I don't believe this will mean that federal marshals are going to swoop in
and close these clubs," he said. "That would mean depriving 5,000 people of
much-needed medicine. A big raid isn't going to serve them well.

"They'd only come off looking like Big Brother, like Waco all over again.
But they might, and that scares me."

Wayne Justman, director of the San Francisco Patients Resource Center, a
medicinal marijuana club, said he believes that the court's decision was a
way for the justices to buy time before hearing detailed arguments on the
matter.

Is California the Wrong Battleground?

"I'm not expecting either U.S. marshals or state drug enforcement agencies
to march to each facility throughout the state, saying: 'You must close,' "
he said.

Justman said that voters knew what they were doing when they went to the
polls in states such as California, Arizona, Washington and Maine and voted
for humane use for the drug.

"The intention of government is to solve problems for people, not to create
more," he said. Other medicinal marijuana users say that the federal
government has chosen the wrong battleground in California to test its
hard-line policies against the drug.

"If the federal government wants to see medicinal marijuana come to an end,
they have to realize that the battle is not going to be won in California,"
said Rob Battista, a member of a San Francisco cannabis club. "It's got to
go to another state where people are much less organized and where the
locals don't support the cause. But that's not going to happen here."

Savage reported from Washington and Glionna from San Francisco.