Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: The Southeast Missourian (MO)
Copyright: 2001 2001 Southeast Missourian
Contact: http://www.semissourian.com/opinion/speakout/submit/
Website: http://www.semissourian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1322
Author: Larry Margasak
Note: Letters of up to 250 words on topics of current interest are 
welcomed - All letters will be edited - Names and hometowns of letter 
writers will be published.

COURT REJECTS MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 on Monday that there is no 
exception in federal law for people to use marijuana to ease their 
pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

Patients could still use marijuana for medical reasons in states that 
allow it, legal experts said. But it would be more difficult to 
obtain the drug because the Supreme Court said distribution violates 
federal law, they said.

Angel McClary, 35, of Oakland, said she will not stop using the drug 
to help her cope with an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure 
disorder.

"I am not going to let my children watch me die. If that is wrong so 
be it," she told a news conference.

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a 1970 federal 
law "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits 
worthy of an exception." The only exemption is for government-funded 
research projects that involve some 200 people.

Thomas said the controlled substances statute "includes no exception 
at all for any medical use of marijuana" except for the research, 
even though the law does so for other drugs. The court was "unwilling 
to view this omission as an accident," Thomas wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens, though joining in the overall ruling, said 
in a concurring opinion with two colleagues that the decision went 
too far.

It should have left open the possibility that an individual could 
raise a medical necessity defense, especially a patient "for whom 
there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary 
suffering," Stevens said.

He also said the ruling could lead to friction between the federal 
government and states that have passed medical marijuana laws.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate because his brother, a 
federal district judge, presided over the case.

Appeals Ruling Reversed

The decision reversed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that 
medical necessity can be a legal defense in marijuana cases.

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an 
injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five 
other marijuana distributors.

Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor who represented 
the cooperative, said, "The effect only reaches manufacturers and 
distributors. But it does put at risk patients who grow their own 
because that is manufacture under federal law."

In California, however, individuals can legally grow marijuana for 
their own medical use. "That's the alternative source to the black 
market," said Bill Zimmerman of Americans for Medical Rights, a Santa 
Monica group that sponsored state initiatives to permit medical 
marijuana use.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer called it "unfortunate that 
the court was unable to respect California's historic role as a ... 
leader in the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no 
hope for relief other than through medical marijuana." He said the 
opinion would be reviewed for its effect on California law.

Uelmen commented, "I cannot imagine federal resources being poured 
into going out and arresting the sick people who are growing 
marijuana for medicinal use. I suspect federal resources will be used 
to seek injunctions to close down major distribution centers."

Legal In Other States

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, 
Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing 
the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature passed a 
similar law and the governor signed it last year.

"We just heard of the ruling and our lawyers will have to review it 
and determine how that affects the Colorado law," said Cindy 
Parmenter, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Public Health 
and Environment.

While several clubs closed down, the Oakland cooperative turned to 
registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final 
ruling.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe