Ruling doesn’t affect Nevada bill

Tuesday, May 15, 2001 | 9:14 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Supporters of the state's medical marijuana bill say the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court Monday would not deter them from moving forward with legislation to permit seriously ill persons to grow their own plants.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchiliani, D-Las Vegas, chief sponsor of the bill, says the ruling does not affect the Nevada legislation.

"It has no impact," said Giunchigliani, who intends to move her bill forward. The bill would allow ill persons to register with the state and grow their own drugs.

Dan Geary of Nevadans for Medical Rights said the Legislature is under a mandate from the voters to institute its own system. The ruling, he said, refers only to the illegality under federal law.

"That leaves it up to the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) if they want to arrest cancer patients. That seems unlikely."

Sen. Mark James, R-Las Vegas, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will review the bill, said he is asking the Legislature's legal staff to review the Supreme Court decision.

"If it means that a state cannot constitutionally, under the supremacy clause, provide for the distribution of medical marijuana to those people who have a necessity, then our hands would be tied," James said. "There would be nothing we could do."

He said he wants the legislative staff to determine whether this decision can be distinguished from what is being proposed in Nevada.

Voters, in two elections, overwhelming approved a constitutional amendment to allow the use of marijuana to treat or ease the pain in such cases as cancer, AIDS or multiple sclerosis.

Assembly Bill 453, sponsored by Giunchigliani, is aimed to devise a system for these ill patients to obtain the marijuana. It requires a person with a chronic or debilitating medical condition to get a statement from his or her doctor that marijuana may help the patient.

The patient then registers with the state Department of Agriculture, which would permit the growing of a limited number of plants. People could not use the drug in public.

Giunchigliani said people are "confusing the Supreme Court case with whether states have the right to allow for medical marijuana use. The court case had nothing to do with medical marijuana use. It was simply how you would grow it and distribute it."

The issue in the Supreme Court was simply "who" and "how" in the distribution, she said. "When we talked with the DEA, we chose not to go to a state-run plan.

"It's still an issue of states rights," Giunchigliani said. "Even (President) Bush is on record saying it's a states rights issue."

The Supreme Court has ruled federal law has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception, other than government-approved research.

Bill Zimmerman, director of Americans for Medical Rights, agreed with Giunchigliani. "Not one word of this decision diminishes the rights of states to legalize the medical use of marijuana under state law," he said.

He said eight states have marijuana initiatives. Because virtually all low-level marijuana cases are prosecuted under state law, Zimmerman said it would be up to them to regulate the use of marijuana to patients.

"This decision does not foreclose creation of state-sponsored medical marijuana distribution systems," Zimmerman said. "The question of federal supremacy in such matters is for another day," he said.

During the interim, an ad-hoc group of physicians and pharmacists in Nevada put together a suggested law that would restrict the use to government-sanctioned research projects.

Supporters objected to that plan, saying it was too restrictive.