Pubdate: Tue, 21 May 2013
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Bob Egelko
Page: C2

MARIJUANA USERS' BID TO TOSS BANS REJECTED

Two weeks after the California Supreme Court ruled that cities could
bar medical marijuana dispensaries, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a
separate case Monday brought by disabled Californians who claimed the
local bans violated federal disability law.

The four plaintiffs, all from Orange County, said conventional
treatments have failed to relieve their pain. They argued that cutting
off their local supply of doctor-approved marijuana denies their right
to equal treatment under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

A favorable ruling might have affected dispensary bans in about 200
California cities and shielded the severely disabled from enforcement
of federal laws that forbid any use of marijuana. But a federal
appeals court dismissed the disability claims last year, and on Monday
the Supreme Court denied a hearing in the case.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Matthew Pappas said the decision means "they do not
have access to medication that's effective for them." For patients
with limited mobility and illnesses such as heart disease and kidney
failure, he said, traveling to dispensaries in other cities or growing
their own marijuana are not practical options.

A 1996 ballot measure made California the first state to allow
individuals to use marijuana on the recommendation of their doctors.
Many local governments have prohibited the nonprofit dispensaries that
are the principal source of legal supplies, and on May 6 the state's
high court ruled unanimously that the cities were acting within their
authority to regulate land use.

The suit denied Monday was based on language in the 1990 Americans
With Disabilities Act allowing disabled individuals to use otherwise
illegal drugs "taken under supervision by a licensed heath care
professional, or other uses authorized" by federal law.

With that provision, the plaintiffs argued, the law expressly
protected their use of medical marijuana under a doctor's supervision.
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals read the language
differently in May 2012, ruling 2-1 that it protected only
doctor-supervised use that was authorized by federal law.

The Supreme Court case is James vs. Costa Mesa, 12-1140.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt