Pubdate: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191
Fax: (619) 293-1440
Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/
Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Author: Greg Moran, Staff Writer
Note: The Associated Press contributed to this report.

U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

State's Prop. 215 vs. Federal Drug Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court decided yesterday to hear a medical marijuana case 
from California, wading into the turbulent crosscurrents of the 
drug-legalization debate.

The justices agreed to hear a case pitting federal drug laws, which 
prohibit the distribution of marijuana, against California's Proposition 
215, which allows the cultivation and use of marijuana for some medical 
conditions when the drug is recommended by a doctor.

The proposition was approved by voters in 1996.

But the state measure is vague on several key points -- such as how much 
marijuana a person can legally possess, or how someone can legally obtain 
marijuana -- and has been caught up in legal disputes over its implementation.

Counties are interpreting the law in different ways, leaving patients, 
prosecutors and growers clamoring for guidelines.

The legal questions involved have been exemplified in the case of a 
Hillcrest cannabis club, which has been in and out of San Diego Superior 
Court over its efforts to provide marijuana to the seriously ill.

San Diego experts on both sides of the Proposition 215 debate welcomed the 
court's decision to hear its first medical marijuana case, but held out 
little hope that any decision would solve the problems of enforcing the 
state law.

The case the high court will hear involves a battle over the Oakland 
Cannabis Buyers Club.

In January 1998, the federal government filed a lawsuit against the club, 
asking a judge to ban it from providing marijuana.

Federal Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary order imposing such a 
ban. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Breyer, saying the 
government did not disprove the club's evidence that the drug was "the only 
effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals."

The appeals court ruled that medical necessity could be a viable defense to 
a charge of distributing drugs in violation of federal law.

In July, Breyer complied and issued a new order allowing the Oakland group 
to provide marijuana to patients who need it and who face "imminent harm" 
if they do not get access to marijuana.

The Justice Department then appealed that order to the Supreme Court.

In their argument, Justice Department lawyers said the appeals court 
"seriously erred" in deciding the federal law allowed a medical-necessity 
defense.

The Oakland club's lawyers argued that "the voters of California have 
spoken" in approving the medical-marijuana measure. Congress has not 
explicitly barred a medical-necessity defense against the federal anti-drug 
law, the lawyers added.

But the Supreme Court's ruling likely will not have a great impact on the 
problems associated with Proposition 215, according to one lawyer involved 
in a medical marijuana case here.

"I don't think it will have any effect at all as far as clearing up the 
areas of controversy we have (with Proposition 215)," said Michael McCabe. 
McCabe is a San Diego defense lawyer who represents the operators of the 
medical marijuana club in Hillcrest that police shut down in April, 
allegedly for operating outside the protections of Proposition 215.

That case illustrates the confusion in the courts and law enforcement over 
the law.

The charges were thrown out by a Superior Court judge, who said the 
defendants tried to comply with the law. The judge described the law as 
hopelessly "botched up." The charges were later reinstated by another judge.

McCabe said the case before the Supreme Court tackles the narrow issue of 
"medical necessity" as a legitimate legal defense. The problems with the 
state law are much broader, he said.

Deputy District Attorney David Lattuca said, "Any clarification is going to 
be helpful." But he agreed there are conflicts in the law beyond what the 
Supreme Court will address.

For example, Proposition 215 allows medical use of marijuana, but other 
laws prohibit the sale and possession of the drug.

He said the state Legislature must clarify the ambiguities in the law, and 
that a decision by the Supreme Court might spur that process.

"They may very well give us all direction on marijuana that can be lawfully 
distributed to people who are using it for a medical necessity," he said. 
"But I think we're still looking ultimately for the state Legislature to 
write something."

The debate over medical marijuana has grown steadily over the years. Nine 
states, including California, have medical marijuana laws in place that 
were approved by voters.

In other cases, the high court:

- -  Agreed to use the case of a death-row inmate from Texas, whose lawyers 
say is mentally retarded, to clarify how much opportunity jurors in 
death-penalty cases must have to consider the defendant's mental capacity.

- -  Heard arguments on how to judge when race plays too large a role in 
drawing election districts. The North Carolina case is a follow-up to the 
justices' landmark 1993 ruling that election districts drawn to help 
minorities might violate white voters' rights.

- - Said it will use a dispute over health-care benefits paid to a man 
injured in a car accident to clarify whether health plans can sue to 
enforce some requirements. A California company says it can sue in federal 
court to force a man to give back his health benefits because he later got 
payment from another source.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D