Pubdate: Sat, 18 Oct 2003
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2003 Houston Chronicle Publishing Company Division, Hearst Newspaper
Contact:  http://www.chron.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/198
Author: Kim Cobb
Cited: Office of National Drug Control Policy (
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov )
Cited: Drug Enforcement Administration ( www.dea.gov )
Cited: Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana ( www.wamm.org )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Conant (Walters v. Conant)

RULING DOESN'T PROTECT MEDICAL MARIJUANA SELLERS

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for physicians to recommend 
marijuana as part of a patient's treatment, but its decision Tuesday offers 
no protection for growers and sellers of "medical marijuana."

The court decision not to take up the appeal of a federal court ruling on 
the issue was hailed by medical marijuana proponents as an important step 
for the nine states that have passed medical marijuana laws. It is seen as 
an encouragement to a handful of other states to pass similar laws.

But the Supreme Court has yet to address the bottom-line question of 
whether the otherwise illegal drug can be used legally in the course of 
bona fide medical treatment. Any state that passes medical marijuana 
legislation still can expect to wade into an unresolved legal quagmire.

"Of course it's a victory," said California activist Valerie Corral. "But 
one would be foolhardy to presume ... we're no longer targets of the 
federal government."

By refusing to intervene in Walters v. Conant last week, the high court let 
stand a unanimous 9th Circuit of Appeals decision that found physicians 
should be able to speak to their patients about marijuana without fear of 
government retribution. But the San Francisco-based appellate court also 
ruled that physicians can be punished if they help their patients obtain 
marijuana.

California has been a flash point for medical marijuana litigation since 
its voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996. Legal observers say the law is a 
target for federal challenge because it is so broadly written, legalizing 
the production and transport of marijuana for medical purposes.

Eight other states have passed laws either legalizing or reducing the 
penalties for people using marijuana on the advice of a physician: Alaska, 
Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Some of the states spell out minimum amounts of marijuana that patients can 
possess. Some require that patients enroll in a state registry to legally 
use the drug.

New Mexico, New York, Connecticut and Vermont are cited as states which 
have come closest to passing their own medical marijuana laws in recent 
legislative sessions. Supporters in all four states say they are encouraged 
by bipartisan support for the issue.

Vince Marrone, a lobbyist for New Yorkers for Compassionate Care, said 
variations on a medical marijuana bill have been introduced in the state 
assembly for several years. But last year, the bill started to move rapidly 
through committees.

The bill made it to the floor, but couldn't obtain a vote without a Senate 
sponsor -- something Marrone thinks they can achieve after Tuesday's 
Supreme Court decision.

"The health committee chairman in the Senate told me one of his big issues 
was the federal government's role," Marrone said. "I can now at least take 
the (federal threat against) doctors off the table."

The last time the Supreme Court did agree to take on a medical marijuana 
issue, it was a blow to proponents. Justices ruled in May 2001 that "buyers 
clubs" organized for medical marijuana users in California are illegal.

Corral's Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (also known as WAMM) in 
Santa Cruz, Calif., made headlines in 2002 when federal agents raided its 
operation and seized the marijuana plants they were growing on premises. 
Her group's lawsuit against the federal government is one of several 
winding its way through the courts, with the potential to force a direct 
examination of medical marijuana by the Supreme Court.

Attorney Gerald Uelman, one of Corral's attorneys in the WAMM lawsuit, said 
that he expects the federal government to drop its attempts to coerce 
physicians as a result of Tuesday's decision.

"But we haven't seen any decline in Drug Enforcement Agency activity in 
enforcing the prohibition of marijuana in California," Uelmen said. "There 
have been several raids since WAMM, and it doesn't look like they're 
backing off at all."

The Office of National Drug Control Policy was quick to respond to the high 
court's decision on Walters v. Conant, stressing that the federal law 
regarding marijuana has not changed.

"Yesterday's Supreme Court decision revolves around doctor-patient 
practices, not the efficacy of smoked marijuana as medicine," read the 
agency's statement.

"We have in place rigorous and proven processes for determining the safety 
and efficacy of medicines. The cultivation and trafficking of marijuana 
remains a federal offense."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart