Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Press Democrat
Contact:  http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post

COURT RULES AGAINST MEDICAL POT

In 8-0 Ruling In Oakland Case, U.s. Supreme Court Finds No Exception To 
Federal Law

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law bars the 
distribution of marijuana even to people who say they must have it to 
alleviate symptoms of serious illness, dealing a setback to the movement 
for "medical marijuana" laws and limiting the impact of state laws already 
on the books.

Ruling 8-0 in a case involving an Oakland "cannabis cooperative" that 
supplied the drug to patients suffering from cancer, AIDS and other 
illnesses, the court said federal anti-drug law allows no "medical 
necessity" exception to the general prohibition on selling or growing 
marijuana.

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits 
worthy of an exception," the court said in an opinion written by Justice 
Clarence Thomas. "We hold that medical necessity is not a defense to 
manufacturing and distributing marijuana."

The court upheld federal authority to obtain a court order shutting the 
Oakland cooperative.

The ruling does not directly invalidate "medical marijuana" laws now on the 
books in nine states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, 
Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Those states remain free to choose not to prosecute people who use 
marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal government rarely 
prosecutes individuals for marijuana use.

However, in those states the ruling is likely to doom large, public 
distribution centers, confining the use of "medical marijuana" to private, 
small-scale settings outside the usual scope of federal enforcement.

The court also may have deterred more states from joining the medical 
marijuana movement, which appeared to be gaining popular acceptance in 
recent years.

"The Supreme Court's 8-0 decision is a strong endorsement of congressional 
legislation banning marijuana production and distribution under federal 
law," said Barry McCaffrey, who served as federal drug czar during the 
Clinton administration.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling was "unfortunate" 
and "the responsibility for determining what is necessary to provide for 
public health and safety has traditionally been left to the states."

Chuck Thomas, communications director of the Marijuana Policy Project, 
which lobbies for medical marijuana laws, said, "My two biggest fears are 
that it will be somewhat more inconvenient for medical marijuana users ... 
and that next year state legislators will say. 'Oh, no, now we can't pass a 
new state law.' "

Supporters of medical marijuana say the drug is often the only source of 
relief for cancer patients experiencing excruciating pain or AIDS patients 
feeling crippling nausea. Some anorexics have used marijuana to maintain 
their appetites.

Opponents, however, say there are abundant legal alternatives, including a 
synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana, and the medical 
marijuana movement's real goal is de facto legalized marijuana for 
recreational use.

The issue forces national politicians to balance their reluctance to appear 
soft on drugs against the fact that state voters have recently expressed 
sympathy for what medical marijuana advocates call the "compassionate use" 
of the drug.

As a candidate last year, President Bush expressed sympathy for states' 
rights to devise their own marijuana policies at variance with the federal 
approach. When the case was argued before the Supreme Court in March, Bush 
issued a statement expressing his personal opposition to medical marijuana 
law, and expressing support for the Justice Department's position in the 
case, which was initiated under President Bill Clinton.

The case centered on the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, one of 
several "cannabis clubs" that sprang up after California voters in 1996 
approved Proposition 215 permitting people with notes from their doctors to 
use marijuana.

Choosing not to prosecute the club in a state where a criminal trial jury 
would be drawn from the same population that had voted in favor of medical 
marijuana, the Clinton Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an 
injunction closing the Oakland club, which he did in 1998.

That judge, Charles Breyer, is the brother of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, 
who recused himself from the case when it came to the Supreme Court.

The cooperative appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered 
Judge Breyer to rewrite his order to permit the cooperative to continue 
distributing marijuana to those who could prove that it was a "medical 
necessity."

Arguing that this could create a massive loophole in federal drug laws, the 
Clinton administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued its own 
order last August keeping the cooperative shut until it could decide the case.

In a concurring opinion Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by 
Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with Thomas' 
opinion but expressed concern that it may have been too sweeping.

"Most notably, whether the (medical necessity) defense might be available 
to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no other means of avoiding 
starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not 
presented here," Stevens wrote.

In addition, he said, "The overbroad language of the court's opinion is 
especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the 
sovereign states that comprise our federal union."

"We share Justice Stevens' concern," Thomas replied. "However ... because 
federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we 
are not at liberty to rewrite it."

The case is U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D