Pubdate: Tue, 27 Mar 2001
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Examiner
Contact:  988 Market St. , San Francisco, CA, 94102
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Author:  Daniel Evansof The Examiner Staff

HIGH COURT TO HEAR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

Walking inside the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, in a rather 
nondescript part of Oakland's downtown district, visitors can quickly 
become distracted by the colorful hemp clothing and -- no kidding -- hemp 
lip gloss. Well-lit and brightly decorated, it's easy to miss signs of the 
cooperative's true business: the just-as-colorful smoking apparatus tucked 
into a corner.

Welcome to the front lines of the medical marijuana movement, which faces 
its strongest legal test this week since the overwhelming passage of 
Proposition 215 four years ago. On Wednesday, attorneys will face off 
before the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to somehow reconcile a federal law 
that deems marijuana illegal with a California law that allows it for sick 
people.

The justices have stepped into a three-year court battle between six 
Northern California clubs -- in Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Marin 
County and Ukiah -- and the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1998, the 
Clinton administration filed the injunction to test the issue, and it has 
been slowly making its way through the system.

The court will look at a 1999 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals. That court, which sets the law for nine western states, held that 
"medical necessity" superceded federal drug laws, allowing marijuana to be 
given legally to patients in dire need.

But Oakland attorney Bill Panzer, who coauthored Prop. 215, says the entire 
case has little meaning. The definition of "medical necessity" is so 
strict, he said, that even if the federal high court rules in the cannabis 
clubs' favor, not much would change.

And that may be why Oakland founder Jeff Jones isn't worried about losing 
the case.

"I don't think it will kill medical marijuana," he said. "These patients 
are trying to end their suffering. They're going to do whatever they can, 
and whether it is accepted in a western medical sense or accepted legally 
will make little difference."

Much ado

Jones, dressed in a blue suit and tie, said he was spurred to found the 
cooperative after watching his father die of kidney cancer. Though only 26, 
his hair has begun to gray, a condition he attributes with a small, almost 
serious laugh to his legal troubles.

He said he is nonplused about why the federal government even cares about 
this case, nor why he should trust them to do the right thing.

"If the feds won't or can't solve our energy issues, why would we want to 
leave them with this very important issue, an issue that deals with 
peoples' suffering?" he said.

Though eight other states have passed laws allowing cannabis to be used for 
medical purposes, and a number of others are gearing up to do the same, pot 
clubs in Northern California were the first to raise federal ire.

The issue before the court is narrow, and the justices are unlikely to 
decide the fate of medical marijuana laws no matter the outcome. But the 
case will likely create some shockwaves because it will indicate how the 
court is leaning, providing a clearer picture of medical cannabis' ultimate 
fate.

It is also possible the decision would influence a case currently before 
the California Supreme Court, which agreed earlier this month to consider 
whether Prop. 215 provides immunity from criminal prosecution for medicinal 
marijuana users.

Lightning rod

Though this is the first medical marijuana case to reach the Supreme Court, 
the law was headed to the courthouse almost immediately after its passage 
in 1996. And that's partly due to its controversial and occasionally 
outrageous founder, Dennis Peron. Peron has been publicly criticized for 
his attempts to completely legalize marijuana, a stance some say 
unnecessarily complicates and clouds the issue. Peron, who would often 
light-up before television cameras, ran against stringent medical marijuana 
opponent and then-state Attorney General Dan Lungren on the 1998 Republican 
ticket for governor.

Despite all this, Jones and a number of other activists say it is because 
of Peron that anything at all has been accomplished.

"Dennis Peron's major error was that he wanted all uses of marijuana to be 
medical," said Jones. "He wanted it to be similar to all other 
over-the-counter remedies, or similar to St. John's wort." And people might 
be turned off by his in-your-face methods, said Jones, but it's still his 
right to say it.

Martin Delaney, founding director of Project Inform, a group that puts on 
educational programs dealing with AIDS-related drugs, agrees. The medical 
marijuana movement -- a rare point of agreement between Delaney's group and 
its traditional nemesis, ACT UP San Francisco -- would never have got off 
the ground without Peron.

"When something as controversial as medical marijuana comes out, it's not 
unusual to find a charismatic leader like him at the front of it," he said.

"But you have to hand it to him," Delaney added. "He didn't keep riding his 
political horse. He got off, and went back to doing whatever it is that he 
does. That is, smoke a lot of pot and sell it to his friends."

In any event, said Oakland cooperative attorney Robert Raich, the movement 
has continued on from Peron. Raich and Santa Clara University law professor 
Gerald Uelmen, who will argue the case before the Supreme Court, are in 
Washington D.C., preparing for the big day.

"The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative is simply trying to fulfill its 
mission in providing its medicine to very ill Californians," he said, 
speaking from his hotel room. "This is not about hippies trying to get stoned."

Though the existence of the club is based on compassion, Raich said, the 
cooperative's argument will focus on state's rights.

"Our argument is that California and Californians have the ability to 
control their own public health and their own public safety," he said. 
"It's really a shame the Clinton administration felt it had to step in for 
political reasons."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart