OAKLAND POT CLUB DEALT SETBACK

Supreme Court: Ruling halts dispensing, may signal showdown between state,
federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a judge's month-old order
allowing an Oakland pot club to distribute medicinal marijuana.

But the high court's action, which had been urged by the Clinton
administration, may be just a prelude to resolving a long-simmering
legal conflict that pits California's voter-approved Proposition 215
against established federal drug laws.

The justices' decision to issue the emergency order signals their
possible interest in reviewing lower court rulings that have opened
the door for California and other Western states to dispense marijuana
in certain cases without running afoul of federal law.

By a 7-1 vote, the Supreme Court froze an order by San Francisco U.S.
District Judge Charles Breyer, who concluded last month that the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative could supply marijuana to a
narrow class of people suffering from major medical conditions.

Breyer based his order on a decision last September by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, which carved out an exception to federal
drug laws by recognizing the notion of ``medical necessity'' and
allowing distribution of pot to patients facing ``imminent harm'' with
no effective legal alternative to marijuana.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this fall whether to review
that 9th Circuit decision.

The 9th Circuit's ruling could permit clubs such as Oakland's to
supply medicinal pot in California under Proposition 215. That law,
approved by the voters four years ago, has been sidetracked by legal
challenges throughout the state.

The appeals court ruling also applies to other Western states,
including Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Arizona, which have passed
laws similar to California's.

In seeking the emergency stay of Breyer's order, the U.S. Justice
Department warned that creating a medical exception to federal drug
laws would ``cause irreparable harm'' to the government's ability to
enforce drug laws within the 9th Circuit.

Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.

He said the government ``has failed to demonstrate that the denial of
necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance
the public interest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of
such medicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal
statutes.''

Disqualifies Self

Justice Stephen G. Breyer disqualified himself from the case because
his brother, Charles, is presiding over the Oakland case.

The Supreme Court's action essentially bars the Oakland club from
dispensing medicinal pot while the government presses an appeal of
Breyer's order in the 9th Circuit. The court battle is being waged on
two fronts: The Supreme Court can review the Justice Department's
appeal of the 9th Circuit's ruling last September; or it could choose
to wait for the 9th Circuit to decide the latest appeal arising from
Breyer's order allowing the Oakland club to reopen for business.

Lawyers for the Oakland club said the Supreme Court's order is a
setback only for patients who now must wait to get access to marijuana.

``This is just a small bump in the road,'' said attorney Robert Raich.
``The important decision in this case will come down later.''

The highest court's action, which came in a brief order, was the
latest development in a conflict between federal narcotics laws and
Proposition 215.

The state initiative allows seriously ill patients to grow and use
marijuana for pain relief, with a doctor's recommendation, without
state penalties. But federal law says marijuana has no medicinal
purposes and cannot be administered safely under medical
supervision.

Justice Department lawyers sued the Oakland club and five other
Northern California clubs two years ago, arguing that federal law
trumps Proposition 215. Breyer originally agreed, but the 9th Circuit
then instructed him to take a fresh look at the case, ruling that
``medical necessity'' is a ``legally cognizable defense'' to a charge
of distributing drugs in violation of a federal law, the Controlled
Substances Act.

Justice Department lawyers called the 9th Circuit court's
``unprecedented ruling'' a dangerous one because it created
``incentives for drug manufacturers and distributors to invoke the
asserted needs of others as a justification for their drug
trafficking.''

Question of respect

The government's emergency request said allowing such distribution of
marijuana would ``promote disrespect and disregard for an act of
Congress that is central to combating illicit drug trafficking and use
by giving a judicial stamp of approval to the open and notorious
distribution of (illegal) substances to potentially thousands of users
without any of the strict controls required'' by federal law.

In response, lawyers for the marijuana club argued that the
government's emergency request be rejected. ``The government has
provided no evidence that states . . . that have passed medical
cannabis laws have any difficulty prosecuting violations of their drug
statutes,'' they said.