Pubdate: Thu, 29 Mar 2001
Source: Inquirer (PA)
Copyright: 2001 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc
Contact:  http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/home/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/340
Author: Charles Lane

MARIJUANA CASE LEAVES JUSTICES SKEPTICAL

A Calif. Cannabis Group Is Asking The Supreme Court To Recognize A Medical 
Exception To Federal Drug Laws

WASHINGTON - An attorney for an Oakland marijuana cooperative asked the 
Supreme Court yesterday to let sick people obtain marijuana to help 
alleviate their symptoms, in a case that pits the movement for state 
medical-marijuana laws against the federal war on drugs.

The court should recognize a "medical necessity" exception to the federal 
prohibition on possessing and distributing marijuana, said Gerald F. 
Uelmen, who represents the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, one of 
several "cannabis clubs" that sprang up after California voters, in a 1996 
referendum, legalized the doctor-approved use of marijuana.

Politically, a victory for the Oakland cooperative would be a boost to the 
medical-marijuana movement, which has already persuaded voters in eight 
states to approve ballot measures similar to California's. But a ruling in 
favor of the federal government could be a significant setback to the 
movement by creating doubt about states' ability to deviate from federal 
drug law.

Notwithstanding strong support for medical-marijuana laws in certain 
states, national politicians have opposed them rather than deviate from the 
zero-tolerance drug policy the public generally demands.

White House view

President Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said yesterday that Bush 
personally opposed medical marijuana, despite remarks during last year's 
campaign that suggested some sympathy for states' right to adopt a 
different policy.

Bush's view echoes that of the Clinton administration, which had argued in 
court that the California measure promoted "disrespect" for drug laws. The 
Clinton Justice Department sued the Oakland cooperative, and a federal 
court ordered it closed in 1998.

Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, a holdover from the Clinton 
administration, urged the justices yesterday to not send a signal that 
would "undermine the authority of [Congress] to protect the public from 
hazardous drugs."

She argued that there was "no currently accepted medical use" for 
marijuana, and that permitting courts and juries to acquit marijuana 
defendants based on "medical necessity" would create a massive loophole in 
federal drug laws.

Justices' doubts

She seemed to get a receptive hearing. Despite its past support for state 
prerogatives, the court has already leaned toward the federal government's 
assertion of authority against the cannabis clubs.

In August, after a lower federal appeals court had let the Oakland 
cooperative reopen, a Supreme Court majority granted the Justice 
Department's request to keep the cooperative closed until the justices had 
a chance to decide the issue.

Several justices expressed skepticism on what they called the "sweeping" 
nature of the Oakland group's proposed "medical necessity" rule.

"I would have thought . . . that the [appeals court] erred at the point 
that it created this kind of blanket defense," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 
remarked.

"Every respondent who wishes to take advantage of it is going to have to 
show that they are suffering from a serious medical condition . . . and 
that they have no reasonable alternative," Uelmen responded.

Justice Antonin Scalia challenged Uelmen to list medical emergencies that 
could require marijuana treatment.

"Death, starvation, blindness," Uelmen began.

"Stomachache?" Scalia interrupted with an edge of sarcasm.

A ruling in the case, U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, is 
expected by the end of June.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer will not participate in the decision. His 
brother, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, had issued the initial 
ruling in the case, siding with the government.

Seemingly conceding that their chances of victory at the Supreme Court are 
slim, medical-marijuana backers have begun a major public-relations 
campaign to persuade potential supporters that the court lacks the power to 
invalidate state medical-marijuana laws.

Even if cannabis clubs were put out of business, individuals in states that 
permit medical marijuana could still grow their own, they say, and it would 
be up to the federal government to find and prosecute them.

Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from 
chemotherapy, save AIDS patients from wasting away, or even allow 
multiple-sclerosis patients to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

There is no definitive science that the drug works, or works better than 
conventional, legal alternatives.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart