Medical pot laws take a hit

Gina Holland

Monday, June 6, 2005 | 11:14 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states -- including Nevada -- to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent of the court's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, a major backer of Nevada's medical marijuana law, expressed surprise when informed about the Supreme Court ruling.

She said she did not think federal law enforcement officers would be coming into Nevada, Oregon and California and other states to make arrests. She noted the Nevada law was approved by the voters.

She said the law "makes sure doctors are not in jeopardy because they don't write prescriptions" for marijuana. A doctor makes a statement that the person has a chronic or debilitating medical condition and he then tells the person of the benefits and risks of medical marijuana. He then says medical marijuana may mitigate the symptoms.

The patient can then go to the state Department of Agriculture, which can issue the person a card showing them as eligible for medical marijuana. State law allows a person to have three mature plants and four immature plants. It's up to the person to find their own supply of marijuana.

Neal Levine, director of state policy for the National Marijuana Policy Project, said he doubts federal agents will be concentrating on arrests in the 10 states that have laws.

"You would think they have more important things to do," Levine said. This decision does not invalidate any of the state laws. He said 99 percent of the arrests made in marijuana cases are made by state officers.

Levine said the federal law enforcement agents weren't making any arrests of medical marijuana users before, so he doesn't expect them to start now.

It was not immediately clear whether law enforcement officials were planning an immediate crackdown on people in states like Nevada that allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

A Justice Department spokesman today declined to say if federal law enforcement officials were planning to immediately begin enforcing federal laws banning marijuana.

"We're pleased with the court's decision," was all that Justice spokesman John Nowacki said today.

The nation's "drug czar" was similarly pleased.

"Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue," said John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy. "Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective."