Pubdate: Tue, 28 Nov 2000
Source: Akron Beacon-Journal (OH)
Copyright: 2000 by the Beacon Journal Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.ohio.com/bj/
Forum: http://krwebx.infi.net/webxmulti/cgi-bin/WebX?abeacon
Author: Laurie Asseo, Associated Press
Bookmark: Cannabis - Medicinal articles: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm

MEDICAL-MARIJUANA USE BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Justices to hear administration's bid to prevent group from providing pot 
to the seriously ill

WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court entered the debate over medical marijuana 
yesterday, agreeing to decide whether the drug can be provided to patients 
out of ``medical necessity'' even though federal law makes its distribution 
a crime.

The justices said they will hear the Clinton administration's effort to bar 
a California group from providing the drug to seriously ill patients for 
pain and nausea relief.

A lower court decision allowing the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to 
distribute the drug ``threatens the government's ability to enforce the 
federal drug laws,'' government lawyers said.

But the California group says that for some patients, marijuana is ``the 
only medicine that has proven effective in relieving their conditions or 
symptoms.''

The group's lawyer, Annette P. Carnegie, said yesterday the federal 
Controlled Substances Act does not prohibit the distribution of marijuana 
for medical reasons.

``Those choices, we believe, are best made by physicians and not by the 
government,'' she said. Marijuana has been effective in relieving nausea in 
cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, weight loss in HIV-positive 
patients and in reducing pain, she said.

Eight states in addition to California have medical-marijuana laws in place 
or approved by voters: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, 
Nevada and Colorado. Residents of Washington, D.C., voted in 1998 to allow 
the medical use of marijuana, but Congress blocked the measure from 
becoming law.

Justice Department lawyers said Congress has decided that marijuana has 
``no currently accepted medical use.''

In August, the Supreme Court barred the California organization from 
distributing marijuana while the government pursued its appeal.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate in the case. His brother, 
Charles, a federal trial judge in San Francisco, previously barred 
distribution of marijuana only to have his decision reversed by a federal 
appeals court.

The Supreme Court also agreed yesterday to hear an appeal by a condemned 
killer from Texas whose lawyers say he is mentally retarded. The court said 
it will use the case of Johnny Paul Penry to clarify how much opportunity 
jurors in death-penalty cases must have to consider the defendant's mental 
capacity.

In other action, the court:

Heard arguments on how to judge when race plays too large a role in drawing 
election districts. The North Carolina case is a follow-up to the justices' 
landmark 1993 ruling that election districts drawn to help minorities might 
violate white voters' rights. The justices are expected to issue a decision 
by July that could affect the racial makeup of voting districts nationwide.

Said it will use a dispute over health care benefits paid to a man injured 
in a car accident to clarify whether health plans can sue to enforce some 
requirements.

Turned down a challenge by South Carolina gambling operators against the 
state's new ban on possession of video gambling machines. The gambling 
operators said the ban amounted to the government's unlawful taking of 
their property without payment.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry F