Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: Tampa Tribune (FL)
Copyright: 2001, The Tribune Co.
Contact:  http://www.tampatrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/446
Author: Charles Lane
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Medical Marijuana)

HIGH COURT DISALLOWS `MEDICAL MARIJUANA'

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 
the state laws already on the books.

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

Federal law ``reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical 
benefits worthy of an exception,'' the court said in an opinion 
written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld federal 
authorities' ability to obtain a court order shutting down the 
cooperative.

The ruling does not directly invalidate ``medical marijuana'' laws 
now on the books in nine states, mostly in the West. 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 efforts.

In addition, the court might have deterred additional states from 
joining the ``medical marijuana'' movement, which appeared to be 
gaining popular acceptance in recent years.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling was 
``unfortunate'' and that ``the responsibility for determining what is 
necessary to provide for public health and safety has traditionally 
been left to the states.''
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe