Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Washington Examiner (DC)
Copyright: 2005 Washington Examiner
Contact:  http://www.dcexaminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3788
Author: Samson Habte, Examiner Staff Writer
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich  http://www.angeljustice.org
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org
Cited: Virginians Against Drug Violence http://www.drugsense.org/dpfva/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

SUPREME COURT MARIJUANA RULING COULD DRAIN LOCAL ACTIVISTS' MOMENTUM

A Supreme Court decision allowing federal authorities to prosecute
sick patients who use marijuana as medicine even if they live in
states that protect them, could sap momentum from drives to legalize
marijuana in states that do not protect its use - like Maryland,
Virginia and the District - advocates said.

"The ruling could have a chilling effect" and prevent state
legislatures from pursuing medical marijuana laws, said Krissy
Oechslin, a spokeswoman with the Marijuana Policy Project.

Although recent polls have shown that large majorities in Maryland,
Virginia and the District support medical marijuana laws, efforts to
pass them have repeatedly failed.

Local Laws

Maryland in 2003 passed a law establishing a maximum penalty of $100
for defendants who can prove that their possession of the drug is tied
to a medical necessity.

But John Katz, a Silver Spring lawyer who defends people facing
marijuana charges, said the Maryland bill does not go far enough to
defend sick users.

"It only deals with sentencing, after you've already been convicted,"
said Katz, who thinks Maryland should pass a law - like 10 other
states have - that protects medical marijuana users from being
arrested in the first place.

"And we don't know the extent to which judges have bought the [medical
necessity] argument," Katz added.

A 1979 Virginia law allows cancer and glaucoma patients to use
medicinal marijuana, but it requires them to get a prescription from
doctors to do so. That requirement makes the law "non-usable because
doctors aren't allowed to prescribe marijuana," said Lennice Werth,
founder of Virginians Against Drug Violence, a group that advocates
for looser marijuana laws.

In the District, a ballot initiative legalizing medical marijuana
passed overwhelmingly in 1998, but was prevented from being enacted by
Congress, which has the final say on the city's legislation.

'Sad and Unfair'

Werth said the Supreme Court ruling could harm legalization efforts in
Virginia if it stopped other states from pursuing medical marijuana
exemptions.

"The [Virginia] legislature is reluctant to [pass a medical marijuana
law] until more states do so," Werth said.

Werth, who has met Angel Raich, one of the two California women who
brought the case to the Supreme Court and who suffers from pain caused
by scoliosis and a brain tumor, said, "It is sad and unfair that she
is being prevented from treating her illness.

"But it's not going to affect the movement to change these ridiculous
laws." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake