SUPREME COURT TO HEAR CALIFORNIA MEDICAL POT CASE

WASHINGTON - Angel Raich of Oakland, Calif., smokes marijuana every
two hours as prescribed by her doctor to dull the pain of an
inoperable brain tumor and other ailments, including seizures and
wasting syndrome.

Pot puffing by the 38-year-old mother of two teenagers is legal under
California law, thanks to a 1996 voter-approved state referendum. But
every time she tokes up, Raich violates federal law that bars the use
of marijuana because the federal government considers it a
"controlled substance" with no accepted medical use, in the same
category as heroin.

To make sure that they wouldn't be busted by federal agents, Raich and
another medical marijuana patient sued U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft, asking a federal court to protect medical marijuana patients
who grow their own cannabis or receive it from caregivers.

After Raich won her case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the
federal government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices
will hear arguments in the case on Monday.

Their decision could determine whether the federal government can use
the 1970 Controlled Substances Act to prosecute medical marijuana
patients who grow their own pot or receive it free of charge from
their caregivers in states that allow the practice.

Raich was joined in her lawsuit by two unnamed men who provide her
with free pot that is grown in California, and by medical marijuana
patient Diane Monson, 46, of Butte County, Calif., who grows her own.
Monson became involved in the Raich litigation after federal Drug
Enforcement Administration agents raided her home in 2002 and
destroyed six of her marijuana plants.

The case hinges on whether the federal government can use the
"commerce clause" in the Constitution to bar medical marijuana use
when the pot is home-grown in-state. That clause empowers the federal
government to regulate a host of activities deemed part of interstate
commerce.

Lawyers for Raich and Monson argue that their pot is grown and
consumed completely within California in accordance with state laws
and, therefore, the federal government has no right to regulate their
medicinal use of marijuana because it does not affect interstate commerce.

The government disagrees, contending that if Raich and Monson did not
use California-grown pot, they would be buyers in the illegal market
for marijuana and thus affect the $10.5-billion interstate illicit
trade of pot.

In other words, Raich and Monson have a depressing affect on
interstate pot prices because they're not buyers.

The government also argues that, from an enforcement standpoint, it is
impossible to differentiate between locally produced and pot grown
elsewhere.

The Raich case is likely to have implications for the 12 other states,
including Oregon, that permit some form of medical marijuana use, with
Montana becoming the latest addition to the list when voters there
approved a Nov. 2 ballot initiative authorizing the practice.

"This is a case that will appeal to both the liberal wing of the
court and the conservative wing of the court," said Gerald Uelman, a
professor at Santa Clara University Law School.

But Rory Little, a professor at the University of California's
Hastings School of Law, said he thinks the court could rule
unanimously in favor of the government.