SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH DOCTORS ON MARIJUANA USE

Ill Patients Can Hear Drug's Benefits

SAN FRANCISCO- The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory yesterday to
the nine states that allow the medical use of marijuana, refusing to let
the federal government punish doctors for recommending pot to their ill
patients.

The justices declined without comment to review a lower-court ruling that
said doctors should be able to speak frankly with their patients.

"My goodness, this is so incredible," said California cancer patient Angel
Raich, who smokes medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation every
two hours that she is awake. "Hopefully, there'll be more doctors now that
will feel safer in recommending cannabis to patients that need it."

The ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which had sought to
punish doctors who recommend marijuana - or who simply discuss the drug's
benefits - by revoking the federal licenses they need to write prescriptions.

A ruling in favor of the federal government would have gutted state
marijuana laws, which generally depend on a patient's ability to get a
doctor's recommendation. The nine states are Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Nevertheless, it is still illegal under federal law to grow, sell or
possess marijuana, and federal prosecutors can still go after cultivators,
dealers and users, just as they have done in raids on "cannabis clubs" and
other locations in California over the past few years.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana clubs in
2001, declaring there is no medical exception to the federal law against
marijuana.

Still, Dr. Frank Lucido of Berkeley, Raich's physician, said the justices'
move yesterday "takes some of the fear and intimidation factor out of
doctors performing their practice."

Even some supporters of these laws had expected the Supreme Court to step
into the case. They said the court's refusal to intervene could encourage
other states to consider passing medical marijuana laws.

"It finally definitively puts to rest these federal threats against doctors
and patients," said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer
representing patients, doctors and other groups in the case.

Patients with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other illnesses say marijuana
relieves pain, stimulates appetite and wards off nausea.

The justices let stand a decision last October by the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, which held that doctors have a constitutional right to
speak candidly with their patients about marijuana.

"An integral component of the practice of medicine is the communication
between doctor and a patient. Physicians must be able to speak frankly and
openly to patients," the 9th Circuit said at the time.

In their appeal, federal prosecutors argued that doctors who recommend
marijuana are interfering with the drug war and circumventing the
government's judgment that the illegal drug has no medical benefit.

The conflict began after California voters passed the nation's first
medical marijuana law in 1996. The Clinton administration said doctors who
recommended marijuana would lose their federal licenses to prescribe
medicine, could be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and could
face criminal charges if they help patients obtain marijuana.

Seven California doctors and some of their patients sued during the Clinton
administration, and the Bush administration continued the fight.

The case pitted the First Amendment free-speech rights of doctors against
government authority to discourage illegal drug use.

Some California doctors and patients, in court papers, compared doctor
information on pot to physicians' advice on "red wine to reduce the risk of
heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or chicken soup."

The administration argued that public heath - not free speech - was at stake.

"The provision of medical advice - whether it be that the patient take
aspirin or Vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or
refrain from smoking marijuana - is not pure speech. It is the conduct of
the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation,"
the administration said.