ON THE CASE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Gerald Uelman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University, argued the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative's case before the U.S. Supreme Court in
November. He was part of O.J. Simpson's criminal-defense team. Uelman will
speak Tuesday in San Jose at Le Petit Trianon at 7:30 p.m.

Dan Evans: What did you do with the O.J. Simpson case? What was your role?

Gerald Uelman: My role was arguing the admissibility of the evidence. We
have extensive pretrial motions, challenging the searches, the police going
over the wall and finding the bloody glove, and all of that. The
admissibility of prior acts of domestic violence, they were all key issues
in the case.

Q: Did you ever talk to O.J. about whether he did it?

A: (Laughs.) Yes, and he denied it. He was very consistent and forthright
about asserting his innocence.

Q: Did you believe him?

A: Yeah, I did.

Q: What do you think of the fact he won the criminal trial but lost the
civil one?

A: I think it's a vindication of the higher standard of proof in a criminal
case. That's the way we designed the system, and it's a good design. They
had to prove O.J. did it beyond a reasonable doubt, and they didn't do it.

Q: How long have you been teaching?

A: I've been in academia for more than 30 years. I started at Loyola
University in Los Angeles in 1970. Before that, I was a federal prosecutor
in Los Angeles for five years.

Q: Has it mostly been criminal law and defense work?

A: Yes, mostly. I got very interested in drug abuse very early. When I was
in the U.S. Attorney's Office, half the cases we dealt with had to do with
substance abuse, and there was very little preparation for that in law school.

I actually designed a new course, taught it the second year I was a
professor, called "Drug Abuse and the Courts." I've been teaching it just
about every year, so I've been following the ups and downs of the drug war
for 30 years.

Q: Did you support Proposition 215, the medical-marijuana initiative?

A: I supported 215 very strongly. I was a consultant in drafting it. I'm a
strong believer of drug treatment and that substance abuse is a medical
problem.

Q: Are the current drug policies a holdover from a more Puritan era?

A: I think public policy hasn't reflected what we've learned about drug use
and abuse. It's a physical problem, and it needs to be dealt with by
medicine. I did a computer check -- I do it every four or five years --
recently to see how many court opinions use the word "endorphin." The last
count was two.

Q: Really?

A: It just shows how unaware the courts are about brain chemistry as it
relates to addiction.

Q: Does this class about drugs and the law educate students about this sort
of medical research?

A: It's very interdisciplinary. We bring in psychologists, chemists. The
idea is to expose the students to the reality of how drug cases are
litigated, some background in the history, as well as the medical facts of
addiction.

Last year was really exciting because the Supreme Court granted a hearing
on the Oakland cannabis case. I talked to the dean, and contacted every
person that signed up for the class, and we worked very hard, and the
students really helped a lot with the research. All 12 of them went to
Washington and had front-row seats for the hearing.

Q: You were the one that presented the case, right?

A: Yes. It was my first time there, and that was very exciting.

Q: How long did you have to present the case?

A: About a half hour. It's not a very long time.

Q: And the justices are peppering you with questions the whole time?

A: Nonstop. One question after another. It's like playing tennis against
nine people. Well, eight, because Justice (Stephen) Bryer recused himself.
Well, actually seven, because Justice Thomas just sits there and looks at
the ceiling.

Q: About the case -- how much wiggle room is there now for the California
medical-marijuana law, now that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against you?

A: It was a really narrow issue whether this common law defense of medical
necessity could supersede the federal law. They did not address the broader
issue of whether the federal law, which is so limited, is constitutional.
Basically, the idea is that if Congress has taken away the only medicine
that truly works for some people, then they've also taken away their
due-process rights.

Q: How far do you have to go in proving it?

A: I don't think that's a problem with respect to a lot of medical-
marijuana users. We have cases were people's sight has been preserved --
glaucoma sufferers particularly. AIDS patients, who are having the wasting
problem, aren't going to survive if not for medical marijuana.

Q: Have you heard of prescription-mill doctors, people who give out
marijuana recommendations like water?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you think of them?

A: It's a problem, but it's not a problem that's ever persuaded us to think
that we needed to stop all access to medical marijuana. The benefit to the
patient outweighs the potential abuse by some physicians in prescribing it.

Q: So, there will always been quack doctors, but that shouldn't preclude
the legitimate use of marijuana?

A: That's correct. I think when we're talking about terminally ill and
chronically ill people, we should err on the side of access. There is
overwhelming public support for medical marijuana every time it comes on
the ballot. But there is really no leadership on the part of politicians.

Q: Why is that?

A: From their perspective, they're softening their position on marijuana
will allow their political opponents to hang a label around their neck
saying they're soft on drugs?

Q: And soft on crime generally?

A: Yeah. It's a risky issue for them.