B.U. PROFESSOR DEFENDS USE OF MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

The production and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is protected by
the Constitution, a Boston University (B.U.) Law School professor argued to
a group of about 50 Harvard students last night. Professor Randy E.
Barnett, a 1977 graduate of Harvard Law School, is currently engaged in a
legal battle over the use of medicinal marijuana, representing a group of
California residents who say that they use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The residents, who call themselves the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative, are currently defending their case in federal court.

Although federal statutes ban the manufacture and distribution of the drug,
a 1996 California law approved marijuana where medical circumstances
warranted it.

Barnett outlined the three main points of his case to the assembled crowd
of Harvard undergraduates and law school students.

Barnett argued in his first point that the scope of Congressional power was
strictly limited in Article I of the Constitution.

"There is a list of things Congress is supposed to do, and anything outside
of that is not within Congress's powers," Barnett said, referring to the
words "herein granted" in the first section of Article I as justification
for limiting Congress' power.

Barnett said that cannabis produced and distributed wholly within a state
falls outside of the jurisdiction of Congress, because the Constitution
specifically limits Congress to regulating interstate commerce.

"The one thing not on that list is commerce wholly within the state," he said.

Barnett said that because his clients use cannabis that is cultivated, sold
and consumed entirely within California, they should be regulated only by
that state.

Barnett also said that the Supreme Court has ruled that intrastate commerce
that affects interstate commerce also falls under Congressional
jurisdiction, but he argued that the current case in California does not
meet this criteria because of the small number of people involved in the
Oakland cooperative.

Barnett's second point also dealt with the powers delegated to the states
and the federal government in the Constitution.

He referred to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not
enumerated in the Constitution for the state governments.

"The Congress does not have a general police power," Barnett said. "The
states have the police power."

Barnett said that because California and the City of Oakland have approved
the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes--and because his clients had
the proper medical documentation--their activities were entirely legal.

In his third and final argument, Barnett said it was a fundamental right of
a citizen to avoid suffering and seek medical treatment. The use of
cannabis to address the suffering of ill individuals should fall within
that definition, he said.

Barnett's case has been bounced around the federal courts over the past
five years. Although the Ninth Circuit Court originally ruled in favor of
the Oakland cooperative, this decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court.

The case was then returned to a lower court.

Barnett predicted to last night's audience that his clients would lose
their case, saying that the lower courts would be unlikely to challenge the
Supreme Court's earlier reversal.

Last night's event was sponsored by the Harvard Libertarian Society and the
Harvard Federalist Society.

"Professor Barnett has been a long time friend of the Harvard Federalist
Society," said Beth A. Schonmuller '01, a third-year at Harvard Law School
and leader of the Harvard Federalist Society. "It is important to invite
speakers who we think will provoke debate and free thought as well as the
expression of ideas on the University campus."