Pubdate: Wed, 13 Jun 2001
Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Copyright: 2001 Associated Press
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/27
Author: David Kravets
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/props.htm (Ballot Initiatives)

DESPITE COURT RULING, MEDICAL MARIJUANA REMAINS READILY AVAILABLE

SAN FRANCISCO -- In the month since the U.S. Supreme Court said it's 
illegal to sell or possess marijuana for medical use, the decision 
appears to be having little effect in the eight states with medical 
marijuana laws.  "I dispense a couple pounds a month," said Jim 
Green, operator of the Market Street Club, where business has thrived 
even after the May 14 ruling. "All of my clients have a legitimate 
and compelling need."

A worker at a San Francisco cannabis buyers club weighs marijuana.
(AP)

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon and 
Washington allow the infirm to receive, possess, grow or smoke 
marijuana for medical purposes without fear of state prosecution. 
Those states have done little to change since the Supreme Court ruled 
federal law prohibits people from dispensing marijuana to the ill. 
Some states have even moved to expand marijuana laws despite the 
ruling.  State prosecutors say it's up to federal authorities, not 
them, to enforce the court's decision. "If the feds want to prosecute 
these people, they can," said Norm Vroman, the district attorney in 
Northern California's Mendocino County, where the sheriff issues 
medical marijuana licenses to residents with a doctor's 
recommendation, or to people who grow the marijuana for them.

In Maine, "state prosecutors aren't too involved with enforcing the 
federal law," said state attorney general spokesman Chuck Dow.  In 
response to the high court's decision, however, Maine lawmakers 
shelved an effort to supply marijuana to the ill.

The Bush administration, which inherited the medical marijuana fight 
from President Clinton, has taken no public action to enforce the 
ruling and has been silent about its next move.  "There's generally 
no comment about what the government will do in the future in any 
context," said Mark T. Quinlivan, the Justice Department's lead 
attorney in the Supreme Court case.  Leslie Baker, head of the U.S. 
attorney's Portland, Ore., drug-enforcement unit, said last week that 
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's office has not given her 
guidance on how to respond to the ruling.

Oregon allows "caregivers" to grow and dispense marijuana for 
patients who have a doctor's recommendation.  Baker declined to say 
what federal authorities may do in the state.

Meanwhile, Nevada lawmakers, abiding by a voter referendum, on June 4 
adopted a medical marijuana measure that Gov. Kenny Guinn said he 
would sign.  In California, the nation's first state to approve 
medical marijuana in 1996, the Senate approved legislation June 6 
legalizing marijuana cooperatives for the sick. Three days earlier, 
Colorado expanded its medical marijuana law, complying with a state 
voter initiative that requires the state to license medical marijuana 
users.

That was despite the opposition of Gov. Bill Owens and the state's 
attorney general, who urged federal authorities to prosecute anybody 
who sells, distributes or grows medical marijuana, even if they 
qualify for the state program.  At the Market Street Club in 
California, the marijuana goes to patients such as Grant Magner, 49, 
of Novato, who says it reduces nausea and headaches resulting from 
AIDS and gives him enough of an appetite to eat.  "It gives me a 
slight feeling of wellness.

I can not smoke marijuana, and watch my body waste away," he said. 
The absence of federal action has led to speculation about the Bush 
administration's strategy.  "I think they are biding their time and 
are being very careful for which organizations or persons they are 
going to target first after this U.S. Supreme Court decision because 
that is what is going to get all of the media attention," said Tim 
Lynch, the Cato Institute director of criminal justice studies.

The Justice Department may take no action in hopes that the decision 
will scare medical marijuana providers out of business, said Mark 
Kleiman, a drug policy expert at the University of California at Los 
Angeles.  The public silence also may reflect that the White House 
has more important issues to handle.  "That is not what they're 
talking about in the Capitol and the corridors of the White House," 
said presidential analyst Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution.

Any federal crackdown may open a Pandora's box of new legal 
questions, said Robert Raich, the lawyer for the Oakland Cannabis 
Buyers Cooperative.  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Oakland 
club could not defend its actions against federal drug laws by 
declaring it was dispensing marijuana to the medically needy. But the 
justices said they addressed only the issue of a so-called "medical 
necessity defense" being at odds with a 1970 federal law that 
marijuana, like heroin and LSD, has no medical benefits and cannot be 
dispensed or prescribed by doctors.  Important constitutional 
questions remain, such as Congress' ability to interfere with 
intrastate commerce, the right of states to experiment with their own 
laws and whether Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as 
an avenue to be free of pain. Justice Thomas wrote that the court 
would not decide those "underlying constitutional issues today."

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