MEDICINAL POT BEFORE HIGH COURT

The Supreme Court next week will hear the case of an ailing woman's
battle with the federal government over her possessing marijuana to
treat herself, in a decision that could determine the direction of the
medicinal pot movement.

The case, to be heard Nov. 29, stems from the 2002 seizure by federal
agents of marijuana plants grown by a California woman who claimed the
weed was for medicinal purposes, which is legal under state law.

Diana Monson, a patient who was prescribed the marijuana to alleviate
back-spasm pain, and another medicinal patient, Angel McClary Raich,
sued the federal government. They claimed their growing and use of the
drug was not covered under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The two won a preliminary injunction last year in the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, which found their cultivation and use of marijuana
to be noncommercial and outside federal jurisdiction.

As voters in more states have approved measures to allow marijuana
cultivation and use for medicinal purposes, the federal government has
moved to arrest people engaging in that activity. Ten states have
medicinal-marijuana provisions. Montana most recently joined the list
with voter approval earlier this month.

"A decision that upholds the Ninth Circuit Court would allow
individuals to grow their own cannabis in states that allow it," said
Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at the Boston
University School of Law, who will argue the case for Miss Raich and
Miss Monson.

"But more than that, this case is about federalism and that idea that
this application of the Controlled Substances Act is an overreach of
the federal government," Mr. Barnett said. "The state has authorized
the use of marijuana for medical purposes. I am representing two
clients who are suffering. This is not a case connected to the war on
drugs, because my clients are not taking part in trafficking or using
recreational drugs."

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the federal government argues that
its actions were true to the law, saying that "Congress's conclusions
that the local manufacture, distribution, and possession of drugs,
including marijuana, are significantly linked to the commerce in drugs
regulated under the statute and that comprehensive regulation of that
local activity is essential to effectuate control of the interstate
drug market."

Further, it added: "The [Controlled Substances Act] constitutionally
regulates the commercial market in marijuana, which is international
and interstate in scope."

A spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy, which sets drug policy for the administration, declined to
comment on the pending case.

In a report published this month, though, the office said movements to
legalize marijuana for medicinal use "are led not by medical
professionals or patients-rights groups, but by pro-drug donors and
organizations in a cynical attempt to exploit the suffering of sick
people."

The most outspoken supporters of medicinal marijuana are
well-organized pro-pot lobbies, including the National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project.

"There is simply no constituency in this country for arresting and
jailing people with cancer, AIDS, [multiple sclerosis] or other
illnesses who find relief from medical marijuana," said Bruce Mirken,
a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project. "So, whatever the
Supreme Court does, the Bush administration is on the losing side of
history."