Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001 Source: Register-Guard, The (OR) Copyright: 2001 The Register-Guard Contact: http://www.registerguard.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/362 Author: Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case) COURT RULES AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that federal law does not allow a "medical necessity" exception to the prohibition on the distribution of marijuana. The 8-0 decision dealt a setback, but not a definitive blow, to a movement that has succeeded in passing ballot initiatives permitting the medical use of marijuana in nine states. The ruling did not overturn the state initiatives or address any question of state law. Rather, the court ruled that marijuana's listing by Congress as a "Schedule I" drug under the Controlled Substances Act meant that it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the justices ruled that the federal appeals court in San Francisco misread federal law when it ruled last year that an Oakland marijuana cooperative could raise a medical necessity defense against the federal government's effort to shut the pharmacylike cooperative. The cooperative distributes marijuana to patients whose doctors say they need the drug to alleviate the symptoms of cancer, AIDS and other illnesses. The Justice Department brought the case as a request for an injunction rather than as a criminal prosecution, which would have required a jury trial. Since nearly three-quarters of Oakland's voters supported California's Proposition 215, the 1996 voter initiative that enacted the Compassionate Use Act to permit the medical use of marijuana, the government would have faced a daunting challenge in finding a jury willing to convict someone for making marijuana available. The question before the Supreme Court on Monday was a relatively narrow one: not the validity of the California initiative itself but of the federal courts' response to the government's request for an injunction. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, ordered the trial judge, Federal District Judge Charles Breyer, to tailor an injunction that would permit those with a serious medical condition that could be alleviated only by marijuana to have continued access to the drug. The Clinton administration, asserting that the 9th Circuit had committed an error that threatened to undermine enforcement of drug laws, persuaded the Supreme Court to grant a stay of Breyer's ruling in August. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in any phase of the case because Judge Charles Breyer, who sits in San Francisco, is his younger brother. - --- MAP posted-by: GD