Pubdate: Wed, 21 Feb 2001
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2001 San Jose Mercury News
Contact:  750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95190
Fax: (408) 271-3792
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Forum: http://forums.bayarea.com/webx/cgi-bin/WebX
Author: Howard Mintz, Mercury News
Cited: Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative http://www.rxcbc.org/
Bookmarks: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

LOCKYER JOINS LEGAL BATTLE OVER POTCLUB IN OAKLAND

Medicinal Marijuana Not Feds' Business, State Tells High Court

The state of California and a host of civil liberties and medical rights 
groups are siding with an Oakland pot distribution club in a standoff with 
the federal government over the future of medicinal marijuana laws to be 
considered next month by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a brief filed Tuesday in the Supreme Court, Attorney General Bill 
Lockyer argued that California has the authority to enforce its 
voter-approved medicinal marijuana law without interference from the 
federal government.  Proposition 215, overwhelmingly passed in 1996, 
permitted seriously ill patients to use marijuana, but backers of the law 
have been entangled in legal battles with the U.S. Justice Department for 
more than three years.

"The electorate in California have declared their view on this question, 
and it should be respected by this court as a democratic exercise properly 
reserved to the states," California's brief to the justices declared. "The 
Constitution does not prevent the states from expressing their preference 
for allowing citizens to use cannabis to treat serious illness."

Legal arguments are scheduled before the Supreme Court justices on March 
28. The court is considering the issue for the first time in a case that 
could have sweeping implications for Proposition 215 and for the increasing 
number of states with laws permitting the distribution and use of marijuana 
for medicinal purposes.

Justice Department officials maintain that laws such as Proposition 215 
conflict with federal drug laws, warning the Supreme Court that allowing 
states such as California to dispense medicinal marijuana would "promote 
disrespect and disregard for an act of Congress that is central to 
combating illicit drug trafficking."

The Clinton administration sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club and five 
other Northern California pot clubs in 1998. Since then, only the Oakland 
club has survived to keep the legal fight going, setting up mechanisms for 
identifying patients who would be eligible to receive medicinal marijuana, 
such as those with AIDS, cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. The 
city of Oakland has supported the cannabis club.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last year set the stage for the 
Supreme Court case when it carved out an unprecedented exception to federal 
drug laws. In that ruling, the appeals court found that "medical necessity" 
could trump the drug laws and allow distribution of pot to patients facing 
"imminent harm."

Legal experts differ on whether the Supreme Court will take a narrow 
approach to the case, or use it to define how far medicinal marijuana laws 
can go generally.

Despite the potential stakes in the case, no other state chose to join 
California's legal position. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, 
Colorado, Maine and Alaska have enacted medicinal marijuana laws similar to 
California's, and advocates are pushing for legislation in other states.

"We were hoping other states that have initiatives would join on board," 
said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who will argue 
before the justices on behalf of the Oakland club.

The Oakland club did gather support from other officials and organizations. 
In one brief, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, an advocate of legalization, 
and state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose, were among a number of 
individual public officials to support the club's position. The American 
Civil Liberties Union and a number of medical and public health groups also 
signed on to friend-of-the-court briefs filed Tuesday opposing the federal 
government's position.

Two anti-drug organizations, the Family Research Council and the Global 
Drug Policy of Drug Free America, filed briefs last month supporting the 
Bush administration, which has inherited the case from the Clinton 
administration. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake