MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATES OPTIMISTIC

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling barring distribution of medicinal
marijuana in California to people whose doctors prescribe it, local
cannabis supporters are optimistic they will win the fight in the long run.

Supporters, including San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan,
said Tuesday that they are not quite willing to give up the court battle.

But they concede that the quest to legalize the medical use of marijuana
will most likely be resolved in Congress and the White House rather than in
court.

"The federal classification of marijuana as a drug with no medical benefit
is a case where the federal law is wrong," Hallinan said. "We hoped the
courts would agree with the doctors on this. . . . But I guess we may have
to fight to change the law. We did it in California. We can do it
nationally as well."

The 7-1 ruling Tuesday, in response to an emergency request from the
Clinton administration, postponed the effect of a federal court ruling that
would have allowed the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute
the illegal drug for medicinal use.

But although it is the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the
issue, it does not mean the justices have made their final decision on
medical marijuana.

Tuesday's brief order from the high court is a stay that suspends a lower
court ruling - one favorable to cannabis advocates - until the issue could
be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then heard by the
Supreme Court. No dates have been set for the next round of appeals.

"This is just a small bump in the road," said Robert Raich, lawyer for the
marijuana club. "The important decisions in this case will be made later."

Hallinan and other supporters hope a new president and new Congress may be
willing to revisit federal laws banning medical marijuana early next year.

"Whether or not we prevail in court, we have always prevailed in the court
of public opinion," said Jeff Jones, the cooperative's director and the
lead plaintiff in the underlying suit. "There was a Gallup poll in March of
1999 stating that 73 percent of the people interviewed supported a
patient's right to have access to cannabis as medicine."

Tuesday's order was the latest development in a four-year conflict between
federal narcotics laws and Proposition 215, the 1996 voter initiative that
legalized medical marijuana in California.

"The federal government is way out of touch with medical reality and public
opinion on this issue," said Hallinan, one of California's most vocal
supporters of medical marijuana. "This is a step backward, but ultimately I
think it will force the U.S. government to come to grips with this issue.

"This case raises a major conflict between state law and federal law. It's
a states-rights issue with an interesting twist. This Supreme Court has
been leaning in the direction of protecting states' rights. Let's see how
the justices go when it comes to the rights of patients who are suffering
from AIDS, cancer and other life-threatening illnesses," Hallinan said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Gretchen Michael declined comment on
Tuesday's ruling, which came out of a ruling last fall by the 9th Circuit.

In that case, the court ruled that "medical necessity" is a "legally
cognizable defense" to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of a
federal law, the Controlled Substances Act.

Because of that ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in July
that the Oakland cooperative could provide marijuana to people facing
imminent harm from serious medical conditions and for whom legal
alternatives to marijuana do not work or cause intolerable side effects.
The club had sued to challenge its 1998 closure by federal agents.

On appeal, the Justice Department told the high court late last month that
the ruling "threatens the government's ability to enforce the federal drug
laws in the nine states within the 9th Circuit," with a total population of
nearly 50 million.

The Justice Department said the 9th Circuit's ruling created "incentives
for drug manufacturers and distributors to invoke the asserted needs of
others as a justification for their drug trafficking" and 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."

Raich and other 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," he argued to the Supreme Court.

So far seven states besides California - Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington - have passed initiatives similar to Prop. 215.

The seven justices did not discuss the reasons for Tuesday's ruling.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer disqualified himself from the case because he is
the brother of Judge Charles Breyer.

The only dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, agreed with Raich that the
government had not met the burden of proof.

Federal officials, Stevens wrote, "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."

Meanwhile, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative remains open at its
downtown office. It continues to issue identification cards for prospective
users, provides information on medical marijuana and sells legal hemp
products, like clothing.

But it does not sell marijuana.

"We will comply with all orders of the court," Jones said.