Pubdate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Copyright: 2001 The Miami Herald
Contact:  http://www.herald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/262
Author: Anne Gearan, Associated Press

HIGH COURT SEEMS SKEPTICAL OF MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE

WASHINGTON -- Marijuana is an illegal drug, even if voters like the idea of 
using it in medical therapy, the federal government argued Wednesday as the 
Supreme Court took a first look at the debate over prescription pot.

The court's ruling, expected by June, likely would settle whether patients 
may get marijuana as a "medical necessity'' even though it is an illegal 
drug under federal law.

A ruling for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative would allow special 
marijuana clubs to resume distributing the drug in California, which passed 
one of the nation's first medical marijuana laws in 1996.

A ruling for the federal government would not negate the California voter 
initiative, but would effectively prevent clubs like Oakland's from 
distributing the drug.

Several justices seemed skeptical of the marijuana-as-medicine argument in 
general, and of the notion that marijuana distributors have what the club's 
lawyers call a medical-necessity defense in court.

That defense would essentially have a judge or jury agree that someone's 
need for the drug overrides the law.

If that is so, the someone should be an actual patient, rather than a 
business organized to dispense or sell drugs, Justice Antonin Scalia 
suggested.

"That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of,'' 
Scalia said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to agree.

"You're asking us to hold that this defense exists . . . with no specific 
plaintiff before us, no specific case,'' Kennedy told the club's lawyer, 
Gerald Uelman.

At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush supports 
federal prohibitions on marijuana, but also respects states' rights to pass 
referendums like California's.

"The president is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, including for 
medicinal purposes,'' he said.

A vocal assortment of interest groups and activists supporting the use of 
marijuana as medical treatment mounted an energetic public relations 
campaign ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments, and activists on both sides 
gathered outside the court.

One woman carried a picket depicting a red "Stop'' sign. It read: ``Stop 
arresting patients for medical marijuana.''

On the other side, Scott Rich of the conservative Family Research Council 
said endorsing marijuana as therapy sends the wrong message to young people.

"Marijuana is not good medicine, to put it simply,'' he said.

A ruling against the club would mean the government could prosecute 
distributors aggressively in federal court, regardless of whether states 
have approved medical marijuana use.

That would force providers underground or out of business altogether, 
advocates of medical marijuana say.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is backing the Oakland club, 
arguing that the state has the right to enforce its law allowing seriously 
ill patients to use marijuana.

Some patients and doctors say the drug relieves nausea, improves energy 
levels and helps combat the symptoms of ailments ranging from cancer to 
AIDS to glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

The Clinton administration sued the Oakland group and five other California 
distribution clubs in 1998, arguing that the clubs broke federal drug law 
by distributing, and in some cases growing, marijuana for medical use.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens