Pubdate: Wed, 30 Aug 2000
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Examiner
Contact:  http://www.examiner.com/
Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Author: Jim Herron Zamora and Ulysses Torassa  of The Examiner Staff
Bookmark: MAP's link to medical marijuana articles is:
http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm

MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATES OPTIMISTIC

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling barring distribution of medicinal 
marijuana in California to people whose doctors prescribe it, local 
cannabis supporters are optimistic they will win the fight in the long run.

Supporters, including San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, 
said Tuesday that they are not quite willing to give up the court battle.

But they concede that the quest to legalize the medical use of marijuana 
will most likely be resolved in Congress and the White House rather than in 
court.

"The federal classification of marijuana as a drug with no medical benefit 
is a case where the federal law is wrong," Hallinan said. "We hoped the 
courts would agree with the doctors on this. . . . But I guess we may have 
to fight to change the law. We did it in California. We can do it 
nationally as well."

The 7-1 ruling Tuesday, in response to an emergency request from the 
Clinton administration, postponed the effect of a federal court ruling that 
would have allowed the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute 
the illegal drug for medicinal use.

But although it is the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the 
issue, it does not mean the justices have made their final decision on 
medical marijuana.

Tuesday's brief order from the high court is a stay that suspends a lower 
court ruling - one favorable to cannabis advocates - until the issue could 
be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then heard by the 
Supreme Court. No dates have been set for the next round of appeals.

"This is just a small bump in the road," said Robert Raich, lawyer for the 
marijuana club. "The important decisions in this case will be made later."

Hallinan and other supporters hope a new president and new Congress may be 
willing to revisit federal laws banning medical marijuana early next year.

"Whether or not we prevail in court, we have always prevailed in the court 
of public opinion," said Jeff Jones, the cooperative's director and the 
lead plaintiff in the underlying suit. "There was a Gallup poll in March of 
1999 stating that 73 percent of the people interviewed supported a 
patient's right to have access to cannabis as medicine."

Tuesday's order was the latest development in a four-year conflict between 
federal narcotics laws and Proposition 215, the 1996 voter initiative that 
legalized medical marijuana in California.

"The federal government is way out of touch with medical reality and public 
opinion on this issue," said Hallinan, one of California's most vocal 
supporters of medical marijuana. "This is a step backward, but ultimately I 
think it will force the U.S. government to come to grips with this issue.

"This case raises a major conflict between state law and federal law. It's 
a states-rights issue with an interesting twist. This Supreme Court has 
been leaning in the direction of protecting states' rights. Let's see how 
the justices go when it comes to the rights of patients who are suffering 
from AIDS, cancer and other life-threatening illnesses," Hallinan said.

Justice Department spokeswoman Gretchen Michael declined comment on 
Tuesday's ruling, which came out of a ruling last fall by the 9th Circuit.

In that case, the court ruled that "medical necessity" is a "legally 
cognizable defense" to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of a 
federal law, the Controlled Substances Act.

Because of that ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in July 
that the Oakland cooperative could provide marijuana to people facing 
imminent harm from serious medical conditions and for whom legal 
alternatives to marijuana do not work or cause intolerable side effects. 
The club had sued to challenge its 1998 closure by federal agents.

On appeal, the Justice Department told the high court late last month that 
the ruling "threatens the government's ability to enforce the federal drug 
laws in the nine states within the 9th Circuit," with a total population of 
nearly 50 million.

The Justice Department said the 9th Circuit's ruling created "incentives 
for drug manufacturers and distributors to invoke the asserted needs of 
others as a justification for their drug trafficking" and would "promote 
disrespect and disregard for an act of Congress that is central to 
combating illicit drug trafficking and use by giving a judicial stamp of 
approval to the open and notorious distribution of (illegal) substances to 
potentially thousands of users."

Raich and other lawyers for the marijuana club argued that the government's 
emergency request be rejected.

"The government has provided no evidence that states . . . that have passed 
medical cannabis laws have any difficulty prosecuting violations of their 
drug statutes," he argued to the Supreme Court.

So far seven states besides California - Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, 
Nevada, Oregon and Washington - have passed initiatives similar to Prop. 215.

The seven justices did not discuss the reasons for Tuesday's ruling. 
Justice Stephen G. Breyer disqualified himself from the case because he is 
the brother of Judge Charles Breyer.

The only dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, agreed with Raich that the 
government had not met the burden of proof.

Federal officials, Stevens wrote, "failed to demonstrate that the denial of 
necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance the 
public interest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of such 
medicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes."

Meanwhile, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative remains open at its 
downtown office. It continues to issue identification cards for prospective 
users, provides information on medical marijuana and sells legal hemp 
products, like clothing.

But it does not sell marijuana.

"We will comply with all orders of the court," Jones said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake