Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.uniontrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Author: Greg Moran, Staff Writer
Note: Staff writers Susan Duerksen, Alex Roth and Mark Sauer contributed to 
this report.

RULING HITS MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Setback For Medical Marijuana

High Court, However, Leaves Prop. 215 And Others Like It Intact

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback to advocates of medical marijuana 
yesterday, but let Proposition 215, California's groundbreaking cannabis 
law, stand.

The court ruled 8-0 that federal drug laws, which ban the use and 
distribution of marijuana, do not exempt patients suffering from cancer, 
AIDS or other painful diseases. But by leaving ballot initiatives in eight 
states, including California, in place, the ruling was more of a political 
than legal blow to supporters of medicinal marijuana.

Legal experts said the ruling precludes medical need from being used as a 
defense in federal prosecutions. In a state prosecution in California, 
however, medical necessity still can be raised under Proposition 215, the 
1996 voter-approved measure that allows the cultivation and use of 
marijuana for some medical conditions with a doctor's recommendation.

In most California jurisdictions, including San Diego, federal charges are 
usually reserved for drug traffickers rather than people possessing 
marijuana for personal use, lawyers said yesterday.

"It appears that the Supreme Court decision interpreting federal law will 
have no impact on the prosecution of state cases," said San Diego Deputy 
District Attorney Josephine Kiernan, who handles appellate issues.

The decision reversed an appeals court ruling in a case seeking to stop the 
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative from distributing marijuana to sick 
patients.

Many issues surrounding the proposition remain unsettled, such as how much 
marijuana people can legally possess for medical uses and how they legally 
can obtain it. It is not known how many Californians use marijuana for 
medical reasons. The San Diego cannabis cooperative had fewer than a dozen 
members when it closed.

"Everyone is looking for a nice, clear-cut rule" that would cover all 
questions around the proposition, said Deputy District Attorney Dave 
Lattuca. "You didn't get that today."

For patients in San Diego County, the ruling may make little difference 
because medicinal marijuana already is difficult to obtain. A local clinic 
that sold it was closed by police a year ago, and no other above-ground 
outlets have opened.

Under Proposition 215, a doctor can write a letter saying a patient could 
benefit from using marijuana to decrease pain and nausea or stimulate 
appetite. With such a letter, personal use of marijuana is legal under 
state law, but there's no legal way to acquire it.

"People just have to get it on the street, which is dangerous," said Greg 
Curran, peer advocacy director at Being Alive, a San Diego organization for 
people with HIV and AIDS.

Rob Lynn, who chairs a patients' group called HIV Consumer Council, said 
the Supreme Court ruling underscores the need for a local task force to 
determine how to make marijuana available under Proposition 215. The San 
Diego City Council voted in March to create such a task force.

Councilwoman Toni Atkins still favors the task force, "because we have a 
responsibility to respond to the public on this.

"Distribution was to be the overriding issue for us," she said. "This 
ruling may well have changed that discussion."

Deputy City Attorney Paul Cooper said his office will analyze the decision 
and advise the council on how to proceed at a meeting a week from today.

One San Diego family doctor who has recommended marijuana for patients 
predicted yesterday's ruling would discourage many in the medical community 
from writing letters recommending marijuana for patients. He refused to be 
quoted by name because of the ruling.

"I don't want the government suddenly coming after me, and I know other 
doctors who feel the same," he said.

The California Medical Association criticized the decision in a statement, 
saying "physicians alone should be empowered to make determinations of 
medical necessity.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote yesterday's opinion for the majority, 
concluding that federal law is clear that "marijuana has no medical 
benefits." The language was broad, suggesting marijuana could not be 
acceptable for medical use in any setting.

In a separate decision, three justices emphasized that large-scale 
distribution was the intent of the ruling. They said the decision did not 
address a medical defense by a sick individual.

In addition to California, voters in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, 
Nevada, Oregon and Washington have passed ballot initiatives allowing the 
use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature approved it and the 
governor signed it last year.

Research into the medical use of marijuana continues.

At UCSD Medical Center, Dr. Igor Grant said he doesn't expect the Supreme 
Court ruling to interfere with the research program on medical marijuana 
that opened last fall. The statewide program is funded for three years with 
$3 million in state money annually.

If anything, Grant said the ruling may encourage other scientists to 
undertake research on the medical effects of marijuana.

"It's becoming very clear that you need very strong medical science to back 
up the claim that cannabis is useful," he said. "Over the past few years, 
there has been an increasing interest in answering this question in a very 
formal way."

Staff writers Susan Duerksen, Alex Roth and Mark Sauer contributed to this 
report.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D