Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: Register-Guard, The (OR)
Copyright: 2001 The Register-Guard
Contact:  http://www.registerguard.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/362
Author: Tim Christie
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)

MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN OREGON: ADVOCATES SAY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES WILL 
BE UNABLE TO ENFORCE THE BAN

Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that federal law does not permit 
marijuana to be distributed even for "medical necessity" will have no 
effect on Oregon's ground-breaking medical marijuana law, legal 
experts said.

State Attorney General Hardy Myers said the ruling, involving the 
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, doesn't invalidate Oregon's 1998 
voter-approved law, but he warned people who possess, grow or 
distribute marijuana, even for medical purposes, may be found in 
violation of federal law.

The ruling won't change how state and local police agencies enforce 
the state law, said Kristen Grainger, a spokeswoman for Myers. But 
she couldn't speak for federal agencies.

"So far, they have been pretty quiet in enforcing the (federal) 
Controlled Substances Act," she said. "They could choose to continue 
that posture or choose to proceed with prosecuting under federal law."

She speculated that federal authorities would choose not to prosecute 
Oregon medical marijuana patients.

"They don't have the resources to go after it," she said. Officials 
in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland were unavailable for 
comment Monday.

Oregon is one of nine states - the others are Alaska, Washington, 
California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Hawaii and Maine - with laws 
on the books permitting medical use of marijuana.

Oregon was the first state to establish a state-operated registry of 
patients. To register, patients suffering from specified illnesses or 
symptoms must obtain documentation from their doctor stating they 
could benefit from marijuana, fill out a form, and pay a $150 fee to 
the state Health Division.

Patients are then issued a laminated, wallet-size card, which permits 
them to grow up to seven marijuana plants and possess up to three 
dried ounces of marijuana. Patients who are unable or don't want to 
grow their own plants may also designate a caregiver to grow for them.

As of Monday, 2,050 patients and caregivers are registered with the 
state, and 562 physicians have issued documents for patients, said 
Kelly Paige, who manages the medical marijuana program for the state 
Health Division.

News of the Supreme Court ruling spread quickly Monday morning. Paige 
said she had 62 messages when she checked her voice mail at 8:30 a.m. 
Monday, and the calls kept coming all day, many from concerned 
patients.

The Attorney General's opinion just confirmed what has been the case 
since Oregon's law took effect, Paige said.

"This law has always been in conflict with federal law," she said.

Lee Berger, a Portland attorney who helped draft Oregon's law and 
defends marijuana patients, agreed the ruling would not affect state 
law, known as the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.

"OMMA protects patients and caregivers from prosecution, arrest and 
forfeiture under Oregon state laws," he said. "It did so before the 
Supreme Court ruled and did so afterward."

Monday's ruling addressed a narrow issue: Whether the legal concept 
of "medical necessity" provides an exemption from the federal 
Controlled Substances Act, a 1970 law that classifies marijuana as a 
drug with no legitimate medical use, akin to LSD and heroin.

The justices ruled that it's clear from the text of the law "that 
Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical 
benefits worthy of an exception."

The ruling means any change in federal policy will have to come from 
Congress, not the courts, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director 
of the NORML Foundation, a Washington, D.C., group that supports 
legalization of marijuana. NORML stands for the National Organization 
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"The court was signalling strongly that if society wants the laws to 
change, don't come to us - we aren't going to make those changes," he 
said. "You have to go to Congress."

Congress has shown little interest in liberalizing the nation's drug 
laws, and some members are overtly hostile to the idea of medical 
marijuana.

At a hearing in March, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., called efforts to 
legitimize medical marijuana "despicable" and nothing more than "an 
effort by the druggies to legalize marijuana."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has introduced a bill (HR 1344) that 
would reclassify marijuana so that doctors could prescribe it, and 
bar federal law from interfering with state laws that permit medical 
marijuana.

Oregon Reps. Peter DeFazio of Springfield and Earl Blumenauer of 
Portland, both Democrats, are co-sponsors.

While the justices did not strike down any of the state marijuana 
laws, neither did their ruling "rectify the confused state of the law 
regarding medical marijuana," St. Pierre said.

He said marijuana cooperatives in Oregon that distribute marijuana 
"are in peril of federal prosecution."

Todd Dalotto, a leader of the Eugene Cannabis Grow-Op, said he didn't 
think the ruling would affect his organization.

The Grow-Op conducts monthly meetings, provides support to patients 
and helps connect patients with caregivers who can grow marijuana 
plants on their behalf.

"We're not engaged in the sale of marijuana," he said. "Our primary 
focus is services - support services and providing education.

"We're going to continue to operate as we have been," Dalotto said.

St. Pierre predicted it's only a matter of time before Oregon 
patients are caught in the conflict between state and federal law.

"If you're a patient with a state-issued card and caught with a 
single marijuana joint on federal land or in a federal building, you 
will not be able to make an argument before a jury why you were using 
marijuana," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe