Pubdate: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
Source: Bakersfield Californian (CA)
Copyright: 2000, The Bakersfield Californian.
Contact:  PO Box 440, Bakersfield, CA 93302-0440
Website: http://www.bakersfield.com/

HIGH COURT TAKES ON POT

The U.S. Supreme Court is almost entirely the master of it own fate in
regard to cases it takes on appeal. But it was almost inevitable that
it eventually had to step into the testy controversy over the
medicinal use of marijuana.

The court has set a hearing for next year's term on the conflict
between laws passed in several states allowing the use of marijuana
and federal law prohibiting it. But whether the court will clarify the
muddled legal issues is difficult to say.

Medicinal use of marijuana is usually regarded as a California matter
as the result of the passage of Proposition 215 four years ago. It
allows defendants charged with possession of small amounts of
marijuana for personal use "medical necessity" as a legal defense
against drug possession charges.

Advocates of smoking marijuana to alleviate the pain and nausea of
cancer, multiple sclerosis, severe glaucoma and other chronic and
painful conditions argue that the smoked form of the active ingredient
is far more effective than a synthesized form that is available as a
pill on an experimental basis. Regardless of their personal views on
drug use, most physicians agree that diffusion of medication through
the lungs is one of the most effective ways to introduce many
substances into the bloodstream.

Since Proposition 215 passed, eight other states also have enacted
so-called "compassionate-use laws" of one type or another. All such
laws conflict with federal zero-tolerance rules that make possession
of illicit or dangerous drugs a crime under almost any
circumstances.

The conflict between the state and federal laws has not yet led to
federal arrests of individuals, but the federal government has
attempted to shut down marijuana distribution centers.

It is the distribution aspect of the drug use that lies at the heart
of federal regulations. Generally, charges of criminality in the use
of marijuana are handled in state and local courts.

Increasingly, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to overturn state
laws. But how it would rule in a drug case that also involves federal
rules is unclear.

If the court rules narrowly on the distribution issue -- as is expected
- -- and upholds federal rules, individuals could still be protected from
arrest at the state and local level. But groups distributing the drug
could be shut down. That would keep the legal situation as muddled as
it is now.

Another possible hindrance to a definitive ruling is the possibility
of a rare tie on the nine-justice court. It is expected that Associate
Justice Stephen Breyer will not take part, leaving eight justices who
could conceivably deadlock. In the event of a tie, the federal rules
would prevail.

Breyer's brother is a federal trial court judge in Oakland, and has
previously ruled on Proposition 215 -- in favor of the federal government.

The situation is one of those cases where it is more important that
one side or the other wins definitively, almost regardless of the
merits, rather than have the situation remain in limbo.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek