Lockyer joins legal battle over potclub in
Oakland - Medicinal marijuana not feds' business,
state tells high court
BY HOWARD MINTZ San Jose Mercury- News - Feb 21,
2001
Contact Howard Mintz at hmintz@sjmercury.com
or (408) 286-0236.
The state of California and a host of civil
liberties and medical rights groups are siding with
an Oakland pot distribution club in a standoff with
the federal government over the future of medicinal
marijuana laws to be considered next month by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
In a brief filed Tuesday in the Supreme Court,
Attorney General Bill Lockyer argued that California
has the authority to enforce its voter-approved
medicinal marijuana law without interference from the
federal government. Proposition 215, overwhelmingly
passed in 1996, permitted seriously ill patients to
use marijuana, but backers of the law have been
entangled in legal battles with the U.S. Justice
Department for more than three years.
``The electorate in California have declared their
view on this question, and it should be respected by
this court as a democratic exercise properly reserved
to the states,'' California's brief to the justices
declared. ``The Constitution does not prevent the
states from expressing their preference for allowing
citizens to use cannabis to treat serious illness.''
Legal arguments are scheduled before the Supreme
Court justices on March 28. The court is considering
the issue for the first time in a case that could
have sweeping implications for Proposition 215 and
for the increasing number of states with laws
permitting the distribution and use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes.
Justice Department officials maintain that laws
such as Proposition 215 conflict with federal drug
laws, warning the Supreme Court that allowing states
such as California to dispense medicinal marijuana
would ``promote disrespect and disregard for an act
of Congress that is central to combating illicit drug
trafficking.''
The Clinton administration sued the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Club and five other Northern
California pot clubs in 1998. Since then,
only the Oakland club has survived to keep the
legal fight going, setting up mechanisms for
identifying patients who would be eligible to receive
medicinal marijuana, such as those with AIDS, cancer
and other life-threatening illnesses. The city of
Oakland has supported the cannabis club.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last year
set the stage for the Supreme Court case when it
carved out an unprecedented exception to federal drug
laws. In that ruling, the appeals court found that
``medical necessity'' could trump the drug laws and
allow distribution of pot to patients facing
``imminent harm.''
Legal experts differ on whether the Supreme Court
will take a narrow approach to the case, or use it to
define how far medicinal marijuana laws can go
generally.
Despite the potential stakes in the case, no other
state chose to join California's legal position.
Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada,
Colorado, Maine and Alaska have enacted medicinal
marijuana laws similar to California's, and advocates
are pushing for legislation in other states.
``We were hoping other states that have
initiatives would join on board,'' said Santa
Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who
will argue before the justices on behalf of the
Oakland club.
The Oakland club did gather support from other
officials and organizations. In one brief, New Mexico
Gov. Gary Johnson, an advocate of legalization, and
state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose, were among
a number of individual public officials to support
the club's position. The American Civil Liberties
Union and a number of medical and public health
groups also signed on to friend-of-the-court briefs
filed Tuesday opposing the federal government's
position.
Two anti-drug organizations, the Family Research
Council and the Global Drug Policy of Drug Free
America, filed briefs last month supporting the Bush
administration, which has inherited the case from the
Clinton administration.
