FEDERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO BLOCK POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARRESTS OF CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS

A federal judge in San Francisco Monday refused to grant a preliminary
injunction blocking the US government from prosecuting medical
marijuana users in California. The plaintiffs in the case, patients
Angel Raich and Diane Monson, sought an order blocking Attorney
General John Ashcroft from prosecuting them for growing, smoking, or
obtaining medical marijuana.

While US District Judge Martin Jenkins said he was sympathetic to the
plaintiffs' plight, he ruled that federal law and the Food and Drug
Administration prevented him from issuing the injunction. "Despite the
gravity of the plaintiffs' need for medical cannabis, and despite the
concrete interest of California to provide it for individuals like
them, the court is constraining from granting their request," Jenkins
wrote.

The case, Raich v. Ashcroft, was the latest in a number of legal
efforts to block the federal government from enforcing its marijuana
laws against medical marijuana users and providers in California.
California voters in 1996 overwhelmingly approved Proposition 215, the
Compassionate Use Act, but since the Supreme Court ruled last year
that the law provided no medical necessity defense, federal officials
have raided and prosecuted numerous medical marijuana providers and
users.

In a message to supporters Monday, Raich called the ruling "a travesty
and a miscarriage of justice" and vowed not to give up. She also vowed
to continue to use marijuana as medicine. "I have been asked if I
would continue to use medical cannabis after the decision," she wrote.
"The answer is yes! I will continue to use my medicine and if the
government does not like it they know where I live, and they can come
and get me. I will not have my own blood on my hands by stopping using
medical cannabis, and I am not going to give up this fight."

Raich's husband, Robert Raich, who handled the medical marijuana case
before the Supreme Court last year, told the Associated Press that he
would appeal the ruling and that he is "laying the groundwork to go
back to the Supreme Court again."

Although the Supreme Court ruled in the Oakland Cannabis Co-op case
that there was no medical necessity defense, the decision left open
several constitutional questions. In his opinion, Justice Clarence
Thomas noted that while the court rejected the medical necessity
defense, it did not address important constitutional issues, including
Congress' ability to regulate intrastate commerce, states' rights to
experiment with their own laws, and whether US citizens have a right
to marijuana for pain relief. The court would not decide those
"underlying issues today," Thomas wrote.

Now Angel and Robert Raich and Diane Monson are aiming to give the
court another chance.

Visit http://www.toad.com/drugs/angel-v-ashcroft-no-pi.pdf to read
Judge Jenkins' ruling online. Visit
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#drugs
to read the complete pleadings in the case.