Pubdate: Mon, 14 May 2001
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Larry D. Hatfield, Chronicle Staff Writer

MEDICAL POT ILLEGAL

U.S. High Court Rules, 8-0, That Clubs Violate Federal Drug
Laws

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major blow today to the medical
marijuana movement in the Bay Area and elsewhere by unanimously
declaring federal anti-pot laws make no exceptions for ill people
using the weed to ease the symptoms of catastrophic illnesses.

Its immediate effect is to bar the Oakland Cannabis Buying Cooperative
from resuming distribution, but the 8-0 ruling also could influence a
pending California Supreme Court ruling on whether Proposition 215
provides immunity from criminal penalties for medicinal pot use. It
could derail similar medical marijuana laws in several other states.

It also is likely to drive victims of AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple
sclerosis and other illnesses back to illegal sources to get the
marijuana they say lessens their suffering.

Jeff Jones, head of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, called
today's ruling wrong-headed.

"This ruling strikes a blow at the medical patients in California and
(elsewhere) . . . (and) sends them back out to the street to try to
receive this medicine in a way that's unsafe and not easy for them,"
he said.

He compared today's action to the Dred Scott decision, which upheld
slavery in new territories in the 1850s. Like that decision made
against the will of the majority of the public, Jones said, today's
Supreme Court ruling will fall to changing times and changing laws
within 10 or 20 years.

Gerald Uelmen, the Santa Clara University law professor who argued the
case before the high court, said the ruling only affects the Oakland
club and not the dozen or more similar clubs operating in California.

But he said he expects the federal government to seek injunctions
against other clubs to avoid the question being put before juries.

The high court's ruling upheld the government's contention that
marijuana has no proven medicinal attributes and that distributing or
possessing it for purported medical reasons remains a federal crime.

It rejected the Oakland club's argument that the federal anti-drugs
law could be read to permit medical use of marijuana.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court, "We decline to parse the
statute in this manner . . . In the case of the (federal) Controlled
Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana
has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. . . ."

He noted that the act states specifically that marijuana has "no
currently accepted medical use," adding, "Congress has made a
determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception."

That means its production or distribution for medical or any other
purposes remains illegal, the court held.

Uelmen said that opinion was "a ringing endorsement for a
congressional finding made 30 years ago. . . . It was obsolete then
and it is more obsolete today."

Calling on members of Congress "to remove their heads from the sand
and get caught up on scientific realities" by passing legislation
permitting use of cannabis for medical purposes, Uelmen said, "The sad
thing, of course, is that patients may get trapped in the meantime and
be denied access to something that obviously gives relief to very sick
people."

Because the ruling held there is no legal defense for manufacturing
cannabis for medical purposes, Uelmen said it was conceivable the
government could prosecute patients who are growing their own.

He added, however, "I would be very surprised to see federal resources
put into that kind of effort. Juries would be outraged."

At a press conference this morning, OCBC attorney Robert Raich said
the battle isn't over.

"This decision is not the end of the line by any means," he said. "It
just marks the end of the first round."

Other issues can be taken up in the lower courts, he said, including
the question of a state's right to enforce its own laws and a person's
right to be free of pain.

Although concurring with the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens,
joined by two other justices, said the high court should have limited
its ruling to prosecutions for manufacturing or distributing
marijuana, rather than simple possession.

"Whether the defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for
whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or
extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented
here," Stevens wrote.

Backers of the medicinal use of marijuana say it improves energy
levels and relieves pain associated with such diseases as AIDS,
glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and cancer. It also can stimulate
appetite and ease nausea caused by chemotherapy.

Today's decision is the latest in a three-year legal standoff between
backers of Prop. 215, passed by voters in 1996, and the federal
government, which filed for an injunction in 1998 seeking to close the
Oakland club and several others in the state.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the decision because his
brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case in which
the Northern California U.S. District Court reached the same
conclusions as today's ruling.

The other clubs eventually closed and the Oakland club, with the city
of Oakland's official participation, continued to register potential
marijuana recipients while it waited for a ruling on whether it could
distribute the drug.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's
ruling, holding that medical necessity was a legal defense.

The 9th Circuit said the government offered no evidence to rebut
OCBC's evidence that cannabis is the only effective treatment for a
large group of seriously ill individuals. Charles Breyer then followed
up with a set of strict guidelines for making such a claim and the
case went back up the appellate chain.

The current case did not decide the legality of Prop. 215, but rather
the 9th Circuit's contention in its 1999 ruling that there is a
medical necessity exception to federal drug laws that make it a crime
to possess or distribute marijuana.

The government responded that the appellate ruling interfered with
Congress' right to battle illegal drugs and would allow clubs like
Oakland's to "function in an unregulated and unsupervised marijuana
pharmacy."

Government lawyers suggested the medical marijuana cause was just a
stalking horse for the wider legalization of pot and other drugs.

A wide range of medical, political and other groups backed the Oakland
club's attempt to let it and similar clubs operate. California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer supported OCBC, saying the state has the
right to enforce its own law.

The Oakland club argued that while cannabis may not yet have achieved
general medical acceptance, it still has been shown to have medical
benefits to a particular patient or class of patients.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew