LUEBKE WANTS MEDICAL POT STUDY

- -- As several states experiment with medical marijuana laws, state Rep.
Paul Luebke wants Tar Heel legislators to consider the issue.

For the second time, Luebke has introduced legislation to form a medical
marijuana study commission. If approved, the study group of lawmakers might
bring a recommendation to the General Assembly next year and would submit a
final report by 2005.

"I am not endorsing medical marijuana use; I am saying the General Assembly
should study it," Luebke said. "It seems clear to me there are people who
believe it has a use in pain reduction."

Doctors have prescribed medical marijuana to treat glaucoma, pain from
terminal disease and nausea from chemotherapy, among other ailments.

Nine states --- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington --- permit the medical use and cultivation of
the drug. Maryland's General Assembly passed a bill last month, which the
governor is expected to sign this month.

All but Hawaii and Maryland used ballot initiatives, grass-roots petition
drives that allow for statewide votes on certain issues. North Carolina
state law doesn't allow for ballot initiatives.

Durham resident Deborah Christie has lobbied Luebke and other state and
federal lawmakers for years over the issue. Luebke's first bill fizzled in
2001 because there wasn't enough time between sessions for lawmakers to
study the topic because of the extended session, he said.

Christie used to work for the National Democratic Committee and is a member
of the Marijuana Policy Project, which lobbies Congress to legalize the
drug for medical uses.

"I'm certainly not a user and never have been. I learned about medical
marijuana, and to my astonishment, I discovered the medical uses. I had no
notion of it before that. I was very impressed by [several speakers I heard
in Washington]," she said.

Christie heard National Review editor Richard Brookhiser, a conservative,
speak about his cancer and reliance on marijuana to treat the side effects
of therapy. Other drugs did not work for him, he said.

"All drugs should be legal and regulated. Our current distinction between
legal and illegal is unsound; it does not make medical sense," she said.

The state laws have set up clashes with federal law and authorities.

In response, a group of U.S. representatives introduced a bill in Congress
on Thursday that would add a "medical use" defense to federal law. The move
would rectify the legal contradictions and allow federal juries to decide
if someone really was breaking the law.

"The bill was inspired primarily by the case of Ed Rosenthal. He was
[growing and distributing] marijuana at the request of Oakland when he was
arrested," said Bruce Mirkin, director of communications for the Marijuana
Policy Project.

The federal judge in the trial would not allow Rosenthal's lawyer to tell
the jury that he was operating legally in his own state or that the city of
Oakland requested the services of him.

"[After learning this], members of the jury held a press conference to
repudiate their own verdict, and one flew to Washington to testify this
week," Mirkin said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that "medical necessity" is not a
valid defense. And federal anti-drug officials have been consistently
opposed to the state laws.

But there is not a consistent ideological theme to either side of the
issue. John Hood, president of the Locke Foundation, a watchdog of state
government policy, said the issue has proven the strange bedfellows axiom
of politics.

Among the medical marijuana advocates is former Duke University Law School
Dean Paul Carrington. He believes marijuana should be legalized, though he
wouldn't recommend it to anyone.