Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: Daily Camera (CO)
Copyright: 2001 The Daily Camera.
Contact:  http://www.bouldernews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/103
Author: Larry Margasak, Associated Press
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)

COURT RULES ON MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Monday that there is no 
exception in federal law for people to use marijuana to ease their pain 
from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

Patients could still use marijuana for medical reasons in states that allow 
it, legal experts said. But it would be more difficult to obtain the drug 
because the Supreme Court said distribution violates federal law, they said.

Angel McClary, 35, of Oakland said she will not stop using the drug to help 
her cope with an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure disorder.

"I am not going to let my children watch me die. If that is wrong so be 
it," she told a news conference.

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a 1970 federal law 
"reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of 
an exception." The only exemption is for government-funded research 
projects that involve about 200 people.

Thomas said the controlled substances statute "includes no exception at all 
for any medical use of marijuana" except for the research, even though the 
law does so for other drugs. The court was "unwilling to view this omission 
as an accident," Thomas wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens, though joining in the overall ruling, said in a 
concurring opinion with two colleagues that the decision went too far.

It should have left open the possibility that an individual could raise a 
medical necessity defense, especially a patient "for whom there is no 
alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering," 
Stevens said.

He also said the ruling could lead to friction between the federal 
government and states that have passed medical marijuana laws.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate because his brother, a 
federal district judge, presided over the case.

The decision reversed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that 
medical necessity can be a legal defense in marijuana cases.

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction 
against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana 
distributors.

Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor who represented the 
cooperative, said, "The effect only reaches manufacturers and distributors. 
But it does put at risk patients who grow their own because that is 
manufacture under federal law."

In California, however, individuals can legally grow marijuana for their 
own medical use. "That's the alternative source to the black market," said 
Bill Zimmerman of Americans for Medical Rights, a Santa Monica group that 
sponsored state initiatives to permit medical marijuana use.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer called it "unfortunate that the 
court was unable to respect California's historic role as a ... leader in 
the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for relief 
other than through medical marijuana." He said the opinion would be 
reviewed for its effect on California law.

Uelmen commented, "I cannot imagine federal resources being poured into 
going out and arresting the sick people who are growing marijuana for 
medicinal use. I suspect federal resources will be used to seek injunctions 
to close down major distribution centers."

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and 
Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of 
medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature passed a similar law and the 
governor signed it last year.

"We just heard of the ruling and our lawyers will have to review it and 
determine how that affects the Colorado law," said Cindy Parmenter, 
spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Julie Roche, one of the sponsors of Amendment 20 legalizing medical 
marijuana, said Colorado's law does not address distribution and how 
patients obtain the drug so the Supreme Court ruling should have no effect 
on it.

"The law says people in Colorado can possess and use marijuana, and they 
will continue getting it as they got it before. I think the federal 
government will continue their war on drugs looking for large amounts. I do 
not expect a crackdown on patients," Roche said.

Scheduled to go into effect in June, the state law will allow those with a 
doctor's permission to possess a maximum of 2 ounces of marijuana, or six 
plants, including three flowering plants. The drug is used to treat the 
side effects of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses.

Joel Karlin, a spokesman for Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana which 
opposed the initiative, said the court decision should spur the state to 
carefully review the amendment to see if it fits the court's new guidelines.

Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from 
chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow 
multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, 
Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Stevens was joined in his concurring 
opinion by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD