US: The US Supreme Court ruled yesterday that state laws allowing the use of marijuana to relieve the symptoms of serious illness do not protect users from federal prosecution and imprisonment.
The decision, a huge victory for the Bush administration, means sick people anywhere in the US could face federal prosecution for using marijuana to relieve pain.
It followed a challenge to federal authority by two ill marijuana smokers in California, where a state law passed after a 1966 referendum allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation.
Similar legislation has been approved in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state.
In the 6-3 decision, Justice John Paul Stevens said the US Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana but under current federal law it remains illegal to possess any amount of marijuana anywhere in the United States.
Marijuana offenders face imprisonment plus forfeiture of property and revocation of benefits, student loans and welfare payments.
Yesterday's ruling resulted from an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women: Angel Raich and Diane Monson.
The women had asked for a court order to let them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Ms Raich, of Oakland, suffers from a brain tumour, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, and smokes marijuana every few hours to relieve paralysis.
Ms Monson, an accountant from Oroville, uses marijuana to relieve the symptoms of degenerative spinal disease. She smokes pot several times a day and said yesterday she would defy the federal authorities and continue to use marijuana, adding, "I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested."
The women's lawyers challenged the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act, saying that under the constitution Congress may pass a law regulating a state's economic activity only so long as it involves "interstate commerce".
The marijuana in the case was home-grown, and distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she didn't agree with the legalisation of medical marijuana but that states should be allowed to set their own rules.
She was supported by two strong supporters of the rights of states, Chief Justice William H Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Ironically the court recently sided with states' rights by invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women, ruling that the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
"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 Justice O'Connor.
The Supreme Court's suggestion that advocates of medical marijuana could try to get Congress to change the law is unlikely to make a difference.
"Realistically there is no way that could happen right now," said journalist and author Eric Schloesser in a recent interview, as "the war on marijuana is a war on non-conformists and on morality" and "has nothing to do with the pharmacological properties of the drug".