High court ruling concerns Nevada marijuana backers

Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2000 | 11:17 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- An order by the U.S. Supreme Court stopping distribution of marijuana in California has Nevada backers worried about a vote in November that would legalize medical uses of marijuana in this state.

"I'm still cautiously optimistic," said Dan Hart, spokesman for Nevadans for Medical Rights, a group supporting the initiative. "I felt a lot more comfortable before this story. I don't know how opponents will use and distort this."

Two years ago voters -- by a 241,510-to-170,264 margin -- passed the medical marijuana ballot initiative. It must be approved again in November.

If voters approve it a second time, the Legislature must write a law on how the drug can be distributed. In California, the federal government has stymied efforts for sale to those who have prescriptions.

The Supreme Court ruling centered on one method of distribution in California -- through clubs. "There are different ways of distribution, and I'm sure they will be adjudicated," Hart said.

Keith Macdonald, executive secretary of the Nevada Board of Pharmacy, said the federal government has been "intractable" in its opposition to the drug, which is against federal law to use.

But Macdonald said a committee of doctors, pharmacists and others is working on a possible solution. A preliminary proposal suggests the University of Nevada School of Medicine or some other group may set up a research project that could prescribe and deliver marijuana. Such a program would monitor and evaluate whether the drug is effective.

"Someone has to say if it's a beneficial public policy and look at it," he said.

Macdonald said the committee has one more meeting before it reaches a final recommendation. But the medical research proposal is not endorsed by everybody on the committee. "One member felt it was inappropriate to open the door in any manner," Macdonald said.

A recommendation from the committee could help the Legislature decide on how it could comply with the wishes of the voters, Macdonald said.

Hart called it "a fundamental issue of compassion. People who need this medication should have it available." He added the initiative "takes the government out of the process and lets the physician decide."