SUPREME COURT LOOKS AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Can states allow residents to use marijuana for medical
reasons when the federal government says no?

That is the question being currently debated by the justices on the U.S.
Supreme Court in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich. Angel Raich has tumors in
her brain and uterus, and suffers from seizures, spasms and nausea. Her
doctor prescribed 35 drugs before he found one that worked -- marijuana.

Raich is joined in her lawsuit by Diane Monson, who first decided to file
suit after federal agents raided her home in August 2002 to destroy the
marijuana she uses for chronic back pain and spasms.

The two women sought an injunction to prevent further raids on their homes.
This was denied by a federal judge, but an appeals court reversed the decision.

The appeals court ruled marijuana used for medical purposes was different
from drug trafficking and said states could adopt medical marijuana laws,
as long as the marijuana was not sold, transported across state lines or
used for non-medicinal purposes.

That's when the federal government stepped in, and the case moved to the
Supreme Court.

The merits of medicinal marijuana are not being debated by the justices.
Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the American Medical Association, New
England Journal of Medicine, the AIDS Action Council, the American Academy
of Family Physicians and other organizations have concluded the use of
marijuana can relieve pain and nausea associated with illnesses, such as
cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS.

The argument is whether the federal government has the right to trump state
law in the case of medicinal marijuana.

The federal government argues it has the power to prosecute or take other
action against patients who use home-grown marijuana in states with laws
allowing medical use. California voters legalized medicinal marijuana, as
have 10 other states, but it remains illegal under federal law.

The argument is based on Congress' right to control interstate commerce.
The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people."

Since medicinal drug usage is not mentioned in the Constitution, the
government uses the Constitution's commerce clause to regulate its usage,
based on the notion that almost any activity affects interstate commerce.

In Ashcroft v. Raich, the justice department is arguing that federal law
gives it the power to destroy medical marijuana, even when the grower does
not take it across state lines.

In response, lawyer Randy Barnett argued on behalf of the two women that
medical use of marijuana was a non-economic activity that falls outside the
power of Congress to regulate trade among the states. He said the drug in
this case was home-grown, provided for free, and did not cross state
borders, and therefore, did not have enough effect on interstate commerce
to permit Congressional regulation.

A ruling in the case is due by the end of June.

Local doctors declined to comment on the case, but one area woman has a
personal interest in the case.

Kathy Jo Lindner of LaSalle has been volunteering at the chemotherapy room
at St. Margaret's Hospital for several years, following her treatment there
for breast cancer.

Lindner has some concern about possible abuse of medical marijuana.

"Who's to prevent a spouse or the children from access to the marijuana?"
she said.

She said the government would need to make restrictions tight enough so
that only those in need would receive the marijuana.

But those restrictions would be a small price to pay to help those
suffering from cancer, said Lindner.

"With the contact I've had with cancer patients, anything that would ease
their pain would be beneficial," she said.