By Brian Anderson
Valley Times

May 8, 2001

Clubs that sell marijuana to seriously ill patients cannot defend themselves from federal prosecution by claiming the drug has medical benefits that sick people would suffer or die without, United States Supreme Court justices ruled Monday.

In a unanimous decision that leaves unanswered a labyrinth of questions surrounding marijuana as medicine, justices agreed that the Controlled Substances Act explicitly denies pot has any healing powers. The drug, therefore, cannot be distributed except for use in government research, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a 15-page opinion.

“It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,” Thomas wrote.

The decision does not broadside Proposition 215, a statewide initiative allowing people with AIDS, cancer and other diseases to use marijuana while granting caregivers a right to grow and dispense the green, leafy drug. But it clearly hangs a pall of potential prosecution over individuals or organizations desiring to distribute marijuana to the ill.

Calling the decision a victory, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the ruling backed federal enforcement of marijuana laws regardless of state initiatives.

"Today's ruling clearly reaffirms the federal government's pre-eminent role in regulating controlled substances,” Ashcroft said in a statement. “For decades the United States has enjoyed a policy of deciding what drugs are medicines through a science-based approval process and what drugs are so harmful to society that they should be illegal.”

For marijuana advocates, Monday’s decision heightened concerns over stepped-up enforcement. Fears of being caught in the crosshairs of a federal case will lead many club owners to close their doors, said Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative.

“I feel that (the ruling) is heavy handed and misguided and that it does not take into light what these patients are to do with no alternative being offered from the federal government as to where their medicine is coming from,” said Jones, whose club along with five others was sued by the Justice Department more than three years ago. “The federal government with the Supreme Court is offering no alternative to these patients outside of the street and a very unsafe fashion for these patients to go to acquire the medicine that is so needed to help them remedy their conditions.”

One such person, Angel McClary, 35 of Oakland, said a relative was forced to do just that for her before she became a registered marijuana patient. Formerly wheelchair-bound, the mother of two told reporters that cannabis has helped relieve loss of appetite, nausea and other symptoms associated with her brain tumor.

“When a family member has to go out into the streets to get medicine, that’s wrong,” McClary said. “We should be able to have safe, affordable access. We should not have to deal with the criminal element out on the street.”

Under state law, McClary and other sick people can continue to legally use marijuana. State and local authorities have generally disregarded prosecuting people who are verifiably ill and have a doctor’s permission to use the drug.

The fear for some, however, is that federal law enforcement agencies — emboldened by the decision — will launch a new attack on marijuana users, growers and distributors.

Joe, 26, a patient and employee at Crystal Diamond Cannabis Clinic in Oakland, said that club’s owners have begun debating whether or not to shutter the pot outlet while members become increasingly worried.

“Patients are really concerned about it because they’re not sure whether or not they can come and get their medication without being harassed or going to jail,” he said, declining to give his last name. “We’re giving medications to people who need it, people who are sick and in pain.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Susan Dryden declined to comment on whether federal agents would increase enforcement or if the agency would consider medical need before pursuing a particular case. She also declined to state if federal authorities would work out an enforcement agreement with state and local agencies on how to coexist with seemingly contradicting laws.

“We will enforce federal laws,” Dryden said.

Kelly McGowen, acting chief of the U.S. Marshals Service in San Francisco, said Monday that she had not gotten word from Washington about any plans to bolster enforcement efforts in the Bay Area.

While unambiguous in striking down the medical necessity defense for growing and distributing marijuana, Monday’s decision did not close the door on myriad questions brought up in the civil case.

The justices did not address constitutional issues raised over the discrepancy between state and federal law. Nor did they choose to focus on the due process rights of patients, stating those issues were not pointed out in the lower court case.

In a concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens with justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the primary opinion was overly broad and it unfairly excluded individuals from using a medical necessity defense.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not decide the case because his brother U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer presided over the original court matter.

Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative attorney Robert Raich said those issues and others ultimately will have to be hammered out back in lower courts.

“This decision is not the end of the line, by any means,” Raich said, adding that he would begin examining filing more legal motions in the case. “It is the end of round one, but there is much more fighting that will need to go on.”