CANNABIS CASE GOES TO U.S. HIGH COURT

OAKLAND - The hopes of medical marijuana patients throughout America
rest on the frail shoulders of Angel Raich.

Raich, a 38-year-old mother of two has been left rail-thin by the
chronic nausea that is one of the complications of an inoperable brain
tumor.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the Oakland
woman's case against Attorney General John Ashcroft, who she sued in
2002 for her right to keep using the doctor-prescribed marijuana that
she says is the only thing that helps her keep up her strength and
weight.

The case may well define the federal government's future approach to
medical marijuana.

Raich said hers is a deeply personal fight.

"It's about whether the federal government has the right to decide who
in this country may live and who may die," Raich said Monday, soon
after learning the court would hear her case.

"I've never had a speeding ticket. I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I do
not deserve to be sentenced to death just because cannabis is the only
medicine for me."

The case involves Raich, a second patient, Diane Monson of Butte
County, and two unidentified men who grow marijuana and supply it to
Raich and Monson for free as the two patients' "caregivers" under
state Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law passed by voters in
1996.

The legal question boils down to whether federal laws can be used to
deny marijuana to sick patients who use it with a doctor's
prescription.

Raich and the other plaintiffs argue that since in their case the drug
is grown, distributed and used in California, federal rules do not
apply. Historically, the federal government has cited the interstate
commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution for the power to regulate the
distribution of medicine.

They filed suit after several federal raids on California medical
marijuana clubs and individual growers over the past few years,
arguing their supplies might dry up.

They won a major victory in December when a three-judge panel on the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal crackdown had
overstepped its authority under the commerce clause.

The court issued an injunction barring the U.S. Justice Department
from prosecuting Raich, Monson or their suppliers.

Raich's "caregivers" have continued to supply her with the 2 1/2 ounces
of marijuana she uses each week. She smokes it in a pipe, inhales it
with a vaporizer or infuses cooking oil with the drug and then uses
the oil in baked goods.

The Bush administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court, arguing that federal drug laws trump the state's medical
marijuana law.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, in his brief to the high court, said
that Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act to control "all
manufacturing, possession and distribution of any" drug it lists,
including marijuana.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in placing an injunction
against prosecuting Raich and Monson for using marijuana, ruled in
December that the federal law outlawing marijuana does not apply to
patients whose doctors have recommended the drug.

Appeals court justice Harry Pregerson wrote that states are free to
adopt medical marijuana laws so long as the marijuana is not sold,
transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes.

The high court will hear the case sometime next winter.

In a related 2001 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the
Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative in its assertion that it could
distribute marijuana based on the "medical necessity" of patients who
have a doctor's recommendation.

Robert Raich, who is Angel Raich's attorney and husband, said that
several justices indicated they might rule differently if individual
patients came before the court to assert their rights to access
marijuana as a "medical necessity."

Angel Raich, who was a cooperative member at the time of the 2001
ruling, seemed a perfect plaintiff to bring a new case. She said she
has used marijuana daily for the past seven years after suffering
allergic reactions to more than 50 medications she previously used to
address her medical problems.

"Medical cannabis has saved my life," Raich said. "I really hope the
U.S. Supreme Court will allow me to survive."

Gerald Uelmen, a professor of law at the Santa Clara University School
of Law who argued the 2001 case in front of the Supreme Court, said
the court's decision to hear this case came as no surprise and that he
believes the two patients' stories present the strongest possible argument.

"This case does not present any issue of distribution, and that's
important," said Uelmen, adding that distribution could sway the court
against possible medical marijuana use.

Uelmen said he would not be surprised to see some of the court's more
conservative members agree with the side favoring states' rights, even
though it would mean allowing marijuana use for medical reasons.

"I think this is a very close issue in the court," he said.