COURT TO CONSIDER A STATE LAW OK'ING POT AS MEDICINE

U.S. Government to Argue Against Use of Marijuana by Patients With Doctor
Approval.

WASHINGTON -- The marijuana she smokes every two waking hours makes
life bearable for Angel Raich. It eases the pain from an inoperable
brain tumor, scoliosis and several other permanent
disabilities.

It's the only thing her doctors will prescribe, because traditional
medicines cause violent reactions.

A 1996 state law permits patients to grow and smoke marijuana on
doctors' recommendations.

But on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case
that's likely to settle a conflict between that California law and a
1970 federal ban on illegal drugs.

The Justice Department says federal authority is supreme in this
matter, and the Drug Enforcement Administration has raided one
California patient's house and destroyed her cannabis plants. If the
court favors the government's view, more raids would follow in the 11
states that have legalized medical marijuana.

Anti-drug groups support the federal government, saying approving
medical marijuana could boost support for the recreational use of drugs.

Raich and her supporters say medical marijuana is a matter for the
states to decide, and for doctors to decide for their patients.

"Without cannabis, my life would be a death sentence," Raich, 39,
Oakland, says on a Web site about her struggle. "Cannabis was
responsible for getting me out of my wheelchair and restoring mobility
on the whole right side of my body. For years, I felt as if I were
suffering in hell. I will not go back to hell for anyone or anything."

The case is one of the most watched on the Supreme Court's current
docket, one that tests court conservatives' commitment to restrain
federal intrusion into state matters.

The case began in California in 2002, when DEA officers raided the
Oroville home of Diane Monson, who was growing marijuana in her garden
to ease back pain. Monson, 47, joined Raich in suing to prevent the
government from enforcing federal drug laws against those who use
marijuana for medical purposes.

A federal district court sided with the government, but the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled this was a state issue
in which the federal government shouldn't have authority. The Justice
Department appealed to the Supreme Court.

Eleven states have enacted medical pot laws: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont
and Washington.

Advocates say the laws mark a growing respect for individual liberty
and for states' rights.

Under U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court
generally has favored state authority over federal influence,
establishing a long line of cases that have reduced Congress'
authority to regulate interstate commerce. Congress used its control
over interstate commerce to buttress the civil rights movement of the
1960s, but court conservatives since then have said the Constitution's
commerce clause doesn't justify all expanded notions of federal authority.

The court has struck down laws such as the Violence Against Women Act,
which gave female victims of violence the right to sue their attackers
in federal court.

Civil libertarians say the medical marijuana case should be easy for
the justices to decide, based on their past view of federal authority.
The 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act is an overreach of
Congress' power, they say.

But that view could be challenged by the subject matter in Raich's
case. Medical marijuana isn't popular among social conservatives, and
the Justice Department will argue that cultivating and selling
marijuana in any form falls under the umbrella of commerce that can be
regulated.

The Supreme Court took a stab at curbing marijuana use in 2001 when it
ruled against clubs that distributed medical marijuana.

The ruling forced Raich's supplier to close but left unsettled whether
federal authorities could block states from permitting marijuana to be
used for medical reasons