N.M.'S MEDICAL-POT ADVOCATES WON'T GIVE UP

A little down, but not devastated.

That's how medical-marijuana activists in Santa Fe described their
reaction to Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision that the federal
government can prosecute people who use pot prescribed by their doctors.

Repeated efforts to legalize medical marijuana in New Mexico have
failed in recent years. However, the high court ruled that such a
state law wouldn't protect users from federal prosecution.

"I just feel sad that our laws are getting in the way of giving these
patients the care they need," said Reena Szczepanski, director of the
Drug Policy Alliance of New Mexico. "But I don't feel we should back
down in any way because of this decision -- I don't think we should
stop advocating."

A state legislator opposed to legalizing medical marijuana, however,
said the court's ruling was "wonderful." The Drug Policy Alliance,
along with a number of legislators, pushed for legalization of
medical marijuana in New Mexico as recently as the legislative
session earlier this year. They were disappointed when a bill
sponsored by Sen. Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, narrowly failed to
come up for debate before the session ended -- held up in a political
roadblock of stalled bills.

Ten other states have legalized use of marijuana for treatment of
medical conditions.

But Szczepanski said there is still hope.

A proposed amendment to the U.S. Department of Justice budget, which
is to be considered by Congress in the next few weeks, would make it
illegal for federal authorities to use public funds to prosecute
medical-marijuana users, she said.

In addition, the Supreme Court ruling doesn't necessarily nullify
state laws, Szczepanski said. Her group will resume its push for a
medical-marijuana bill during an upcoming legislative session
because, she says, states can still offer protection to
medical-marijuana users, even if the federal government won't.

State authorities carry out about 99 percent of drug prosecutions,
she said. If state authorities do not prosecute users, there is
little chance they will be targeted by federal agents, Szczepanksi said.

But Sen. Carroll Leavell, R-Jal, said he would vote against any
future proposal to legalize marijuana because it "sends a bad
message." "I understand some people's concern for the need for
medical marijuana," he said. "In my opinion, there are so many other
legal narcotics that kill pain and increase appetite that it is not
something that is needed. Nor is it desirable." Erin Armstrong, a
23-year-old activist who has struggled with thyroid cancer, said she
was disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling but hopes New Mexico
will still changes its law.

"It doesn't change anything about our fight that is going on in New
Mexico," she said. "This state's most vulnerable and sick patients
deserve the compassion and support of their government. And the
state's voters deserve to know that they live in a working
democracy." Jane Littlefield-Bendt, the mother of an AIDS patient who
passed away after three years of constant pain, said she still thinks
New Mexico should legalize marijuana. Littlefield-Bendt's son, Harold
Lombardi, wrote in his journal that life without marijuana was intolerable.

"The pot's gone, the pain is back," he wrote.

Lombardi had violent reactions to the drug cocktail he was prescribed
to curb the spread of AIDS in his body, his mother said. Instead, he
smoked pot for about three years.

"This isn't about hippies -- this is about families," she said.