Pubdate: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 Source: CNN (US) Show: Street Sweep, 15:00:00 PM ET Copyright: 2001 Cable News Network, Inc. Contact: http://cnnfn.cnn.com/services/speakup/ Website: http://www.cnn.com/, http://cnnfn.cnn.com/ Forum: http://community.cnn.com/ Host: Allan Chernoff Guests: Robert Barr, Chuck Thomas Note: Transcript # 01032815FN-l06 SUPREME COURT HEARING ON MARIJUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZATION, CNNFN ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNNfn ANCHOR, STREET SWEEP: The Supreme Court is now considering a case that will determine whether marijuana should be legally prescribed for medical purposes. A final ruling is expected by June. Right now, eight states allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Some patients and doctors say marijuana helps combat symptoms of various ailments, and is much cheaper and more effective than other types of treatments. Joining us right now from Washington to discuss the issue, and the economic impact of medical marijuana, Chuck Thomas, he's communication's director of Marijuana Policy Project, advocating its medical use. And, Congressman Bob Barr, Republican from Georgia who says cannabis should be banned. Congressman, let's start with you. And what is your impression -- what do you think the Supreme Court is going to decide? We had the hearing this morning, and it seems the conservative court is perhaps a little bit skeptical here? REP. ROBERT BARR (R) GEORGIA: Of course, the issue before the Supreme Court is a very narrow one. I don't think they're going to directly address the underlying issue of marijuana. They will focus on whether or not federal law will continue to prevail, and whether or not a state can override federal law. I don't think the Supreme Court will agree with that, so I think that they will reverse the lower court's opinion, which had seemed to open the door to the so-called "medicinal use of marijuana" in California. CHERNOFF: That's right. This case has gone back and forth, back and forth. Originally, it was turned down. An appeals court actually gave the OK. Now, the Supreme Court is left making the decision. And let's move over to Chuck Thomas and ask you exactly what do you expect that we're going to hear from the Supreme Court? You heard what the congressman had to say. CHUCK THOMAS, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT: Sure. Well, the Supreme Court is not challenging the right of a state to remove criminal penalties on the state level for patients who are growing or using their own medical marijuana, if their doctors recommend it. All the Supreme Court will decide is, under federal law, if the federal government arrests a marijuana distributor, and tries the case in federal court, if the distributor is serving only patients, is the person allowed to use a "medical necessity" defense just to present the facts to the judge and the jury, that they were serving only seriously ill people with their doctor's approval, and allow the judge and jury to take that into account? So we hope that the Supreme Court will rule to at least allow people to make that defense. But even if they don't, there will still continue to be tens of thousands of people nationwide using medical marijuana, and in the states, California and the other seven states that have removed criminal penalties for these people, they will continue to be allowed to use medical marijuana under state law, which is where 99 percent of marijuana arrests take place, at the state level. So really, nothing will change in terms of individual patients being able to grow and use medical marijuana without going to prison. This will only deal with the federal law, and with the narrow issue of medical necessity defense for distribution. CHERNOFF: Now, let's keep in mind, this is not a situation where we have hospitals necessarily buying the product for patient - rather, we just showed some video of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. And Congressman Barr, let me ask you, do you have a problem with this type of a cooperative buying for the purpose of medical treatment? BARR: First of all, there's no such thing as "medical marijuana;" there is marijuana. And that's fundamentally what we're talking about. They have put the word "medical" in front of it to make it appear benign-to put a kind and gentle face on it. And that is why they have been so successful, they've changed tactics - that is the drug legalizers I'm speaking of here - - they've changed tactics in recent years. They've become very clever, very smart. They realize that if they just put their drug use out there, as they have done in the past, and said, legalize marijuana, they were going to lose. But if they call it something different, so-called "medical marijuana," then it all of a sudden appears to legitimate. No, I don't favor it in a way, shape or form, and I don't think that the Supreme Court will allow an individual state, even if it wants to legalize marijuana, to say that that means the federal government can continue to enforce federal drug laws. CHERNOFF: Congressman Barr, what about cancer patients for example, who have chronic pain, and say that the marijuana actually helps them to deal with their pain? You're saying, they should not be allowed to use it? BARR: I do think they should not be allowed to use it-- because you get yourself on a very slippery slope here. And plus the fact, even though the drug legalizers come up with their own studies from time to time that show that people like to use marijuana - no surprise there certainly - the fact is that doctor after doctor after doctor has told us, and testified before the Congress, that there are other substitutes that can do a better job of this, without -- well hold on -- without all of the side effects, such as memory loss, reproductive destruction, and destroying your immune system, that comes with smoking marijuana. THOMAS: I'd like to point out that, of all the amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court case, the health and medical groups only filed on behalf of the medical marijuana distributors. There weren't any health or medical groups filing briefs on behalf of the government's position. We had the California Medical Association, Nurses Associations, American Public Health Association, various AIDS groups - all kinds of health and medical groups. The attorney general of California even filed a brief on behalf of medical marijuana distribution. So this is clearly an issue where doctors and patients - the patients that we represent; the patients that I have seen using medical marijuana, that I know that they are using it because they have their doctor's approval - these people are the ones who are advocating for medical marijuana. We're trying to help them and then we're being broadcast as some sort of a conspiracy of some sort. When you really look at what happens-- in Oregon, for example, that has a favorable medical marijuana law, there are 600 doctors registered with the state as medical marijuana people-- doctors who have approved medical marijuana for patients in the state of Oregon, in the small state of Oregon. CHERNOFF: Sorry to interrupt you - THOMAS: Sure. CHERNOFF: But we are actually running out of time. THOMAS: OK. CHERNOFF: Mr. Thomas and Congressman Barr, thank you very much for joining us; appreciate it. THOMAS: Thank you. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D