Pubdate: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
Source: Alameda Times-Star (CA)
Copyright: 2000 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
Contact:  66 Jack London Sq. Oakland, CA 94607
Website: http://www.newschoice.com/newspapers/alameda/times/
Author: Josh Richman, Staff Writer

OAKLAND 'POT' CLUB CASE TO TOP COURT

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the Oakland Cannabis Buyers 
Cooperative can use medical necessity as a defense against the federal ban 
on marijuana's use.

This will be the first time the nation's highest court has addressed 
medical marijuana. The Oakland cooperative would have preferred it if the 
court had rejected the case -- as it stands now, lower courts have let the 
club distribute marijuana to seriously ill patients. The Justice Department 
sought this final appeal, but would not comment when it was granted Monday.

"We hope that the Supreme Court will exercise its authority in a wise and 
judicious manner, and consider the needs of many seriously ill, suffering 
Americans -- patients whose doctors have found cannabis is the only therapy 
that will prolong or bring meaning to their lives," said cooperative 
attorney Robert Raich.

This legal development deals with a temporary injunction the government won 
to keep the cooperative from dispensing marijuana while the full case is 
briefed and argued. Raich said the high court will hear arguments this 
spring and issue a decision by the end of June.

"We hope that it will vindicate Californians that voted on allowing 
patients to have compassionate access to this medicine, and that it 
vindicates the citizens of the many other States that also passed 
compassionate access laws," cooperative director Jeff Jones said in a news 
release.

Californians in 1996 approved Proposition 215, which was meant to let 
seriously ill patients with a doctor's assent get and use marijuana without 
fear of prosecution. Cancer and AIDS patients use the drug's 
appetite-boosting effect to combat nausea and weight loss; others use it to 
fight symptoms of glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, multiple sclerosis and 
other ills.

Seven other states -- including Nevada and Colorado, which approved ballot 
initiatives just this month -- also have medical marijuana laws.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary injunction closing 
the 2,500-member Oakland cooperative and five other Northern California 
clubs in 1998 after the government argued federal law bans all marijuana 
distribution and use, regardless of state law.

Last September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal told Breyer to 
reconsider and let the cooperative make a medical necessity argument. 
Breyer in July ruled the government failed to dispute this argument, so he 
had little choice but to let the cooperative start dispensing marijuana again.

The Justice Department then asked the Supreme Court to review the 9th 
Circuit decision. Congress gave the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services power to dictate marijuana policy, the department 
argued in its petition: "It has not left that determination to individual 
courts or juries -- much less to private organizations like the Oakland 
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative."

The Supreme Court in August ordered the cooperative to stop dispensing 
marijuana at least until it could decide whether to take the case. That 
stay remains in effect.

Federal law -- in this case, the Controlled Substances Act -- always trumps 
state laws such as Proposition 215, said Jesse Choper, Earl Warren 
Professor of Public Law at the University of California, Berkeley's Boalt 
Hall School of Law.

"But I do think there is a decent constitutional argument to be made," he 
said. "In the assisted-suicide cases several years ago, there are hints of 
varying strength from five justices that denial of relief of great pain to 
people who are dying might violate their constitutional rights."

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has recused himself from this case 
because the trial judge is his brother.

A separate appeal of Charles Breyer's July ruling will be argued before the 
9th Circuit in January.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D