MEDICAL MARIJUANA GETS TOUGH SCRUTINY FROM SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON -- California's medicinal-marijuana law came under sharp attack
at the U.S. Supreme Court as several justices questioned whether the state
can carve out a medical exemption for marijuana use that doesn't violate
federal drug laws.

The justices heard oral arguments yesterday in a lawsuit filed by two
California residents who qualified to use marijuana to relieve pain from
health problems. The residents sued to bar federal prosecution by the
Justice Department, which believes the state law is invalid.

California, one of nine states that allow use of marijuana for medical
reasons, regulates medicinal marijuana under an exemption put in place by a
state voter referendum. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates
drugs nationwide, hasn't approved marijuana use for medical purposes.

"Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum," said
Justice Stephen Breyer, who told advocates for the California law they
should try to win FDA approval of medicinal-marijuana use. Efforts to
enforce marijuana laws barring recreational use "face a mess" if an
exemption is allowed for medicinal purposes, he said.

Despite an underlying concern about states' rights important to a number of
justices, the high court appeared concerned that the California law would
harm drug enforcement, and they expressed skepticism that the
Constitution's commerce provisions let states approve marijuana cultivation
for personal consumption, as a lower court decided in the case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, asked whether upholding the
California law could make marijuana cheaper and easier to access. Justice
Antonin Scalia, a states' rights advocate, compared the federal ban on
medicinal marijuana to federal laws making it illegal to possess eagle
feathers or ivory from animal tusks to protect endangered species.

Randy Barnett, a Boston attorney and senior fellow at the Cato Institute
who represented the plaintiffs, argued that the law was written to give
limited number of qualified people access to marijuana. "This is a class of
activity that is isolated by the state of California and policed by the
state," he said.

Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the U.S. government,
questioned whether marijuana has a legitimate medical purpose. "Smoked
marijuana itself really doesn't have a future as medicine," he said.

The Supreme Court will rule on the case by July 2005. (Ashcroft v. Raich)