MEDICINAL POT USERS RENEW LEGAL CHALLENGE

Regrouped and armed with new tactics, two Bay Area attorneys today again
sued the United States government over its campaign to quash the use of
medical marijuana, now legal in eight states, including California.

Lawyers Robert Raich and David Michael, flanked by their clients, two pot
users who say the weed eases their serious ailments, told reporters in
Oakland, Calif., that they'd defined constitutional issues that will help
them prevail where their last lawsuit failed. That complaint journeyed all
the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being denied last year.

In that suit, the court ruled in May 2001 that the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative had no right to sell pot to the ill, even though such sales are
legal with a doctor's recommendation under California's medical marijuana
law, approved by voters in 1996. Seven more states followed with similar
laws.

But the Supreme Court concluded federal law supersedes. Even so, Justice
Clarence Thomas wrote that some constitutional issues remained unresolved,
such as the federal government's right to interfere with intrastate commerce
and a citizen's right to use marijuana to relieve pain.

It's those crevices in the decision that Raich and Michael are now trying to
exploit.

This time, no complicating factors, such as distribution of marijuana by a
cannabis club, are clouding ``over the pure issues that we are presenting
here,'' Michael said. ``This case is clean.''

In part, their arguments will remind people of their civics lessons in
federalism, the distribution of power between the federal and state
governments. For example, the attorneys contend that the federal
government's meddling in pot sales that never cross state lines is a
violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The suit, filed against Attorney General John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson,
the chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, charges that the continued
attacks on medical marijuana users and suppliers also violate the Fifth,
Ninth and 10th Amendments. It asks the court to stop the government from
enforcing the federal marijuana laws against the plaintiffs -- Diane Monson
and Angel McClary Raich (who married her attorney two months ago) and two
John Does, listed anonymously because they're McClary's pot providers.

Monson grows her own, but Butte County Sheriff's deputies and DEA agents
ripped up her six plants in August, she said.

In addition to federalism and the commerce clause, the attorneys are arguing
a constitutional right to preserve and prolong one's life and a common-law
doctrine of medical necessity.

The San Francisco U.S. Attorney's and DEA offices declined to comment on the
case, their typical policy on pending litigation.

Richard Meyer, a special agent for the DEA, said his agency supports
scientific research into the potential benefits of marijuana, but for now
sees it as addictive and harmful. ``It is a dangerous drug,'' he said today.
`It has no recognized medical use and a high potential for abuse.''

He'll never convince Monson and McClary of that.

Monson said it's the only thing that effectively helps her chronic back
pain. Prescription drugs, she said, just make her drowsy. Neither patient
gets much of a buzz off the weed, possibly because they have to use it so
regularly -- every two hours for McClary.

McClary offered a list of ailments worthy of a medical textbook: inoperable
brain tumor, seizures, endometriosis, scoliosis and a wasting disorder. She
weighs only 97 pounds and said without pot she'd starve to death.

Both declared they'd continue to light up, no matter what the government
says.

``I'm not willing to give up my life,'' McClary said.