Supreme Court Considers Medical Marijuana
ZAHN: We are now up to some eleven states that actually allow the use of marijuana to treat people who are seriously ill. But the Bush administration says those states are violating federal law, that pot is an illegal narcotic. Well the pros and cons of medical marijuana were argued today before the U.S. Supreme Court. And what is at stake in this case is not only the question of medical treatment, but the issue of state's rights.</s>ANGEL RAICH, MEDICAL MARIJUANA USER: I have an inoperable brain tumor.</s>ZAHN (voice-over): For Angel Raich, every day is a battle against relentless pain, spasms and seizures caused by a brain tumor, scoliosis, and a joint disease.</s>RAICH: Nausea, severe chronic pain. I really am, unfortunately, riddled with illness.</s>ZAHN: After trying dozens of medications to ease her pain, this California mother of two teenagers turned to marijuana. Angel's doctor prescribed lighting up every two hours. She smokes about three ounces a week from plants grown specifically for her treatment. No money changes hands. She says the drug is helping her win her personal war against pain. Even today, on the steps of the Supreme Court.</s>RAICH: I need to use cannabis every two hours. If I don't medicate every two hours, I become debilitated. In fact just standing here now, my body is actually trying to go into spasm, and you can actually see my physical body already changing.</s>ZAHN: Raich's home state of California, along with ten other states, allow people to use marijuana if their doctors recommend it. On the other side of the case, federal health officials say there are no proven benefits for marijuana use. And it may even contribute to cancer.</s>CALVINA FAY, DRUG-FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION: None of this is being driven by doctors. It's not -- it's been rejected. Marijuana is rejected as a medicine by all of the major medical associations. It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized.</s>ZAHN: A federal appeals court has ruled that states are free to adopt medical marijuana laws, so long as the drug is not sold or transported across state lines. It said federal laws that criminalize marijuana don't apply to patients whose doctors have recommended it. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court will consider whether the federal law that bans marijuana possession can be enforced in those states allowing its medical use. Raich says no matter what the Supreme Court decides, she won't stop using marijuana.</s>RAICH: If it wasn't for cannabis I really would not be here today talking to you and fighting for my rights. And I feel very strongly that the justices should really think very hardly about the fact, and the facts that are before them, because today, if they decide that I have the right to live, then I will be able to spend the rest of my life with my family. On the other hand, if they decide against me, it means that they would be giving me a death sentence.</s>ZAHN: Joining me now from Boston, Randy Barnett, who argued the case on behalf of Angel Raich and another plaintiff before the high court today. He's a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. And from Tampa, Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug-Free America Foundation. Glad to have both of you with us tonight. Calvina, I want to start with you. You say this is not about doctors helping patients. That this movement is a result of people motivated to try to get narcotics legalized in this country. Are you telling me when you listen to Angel Raich's story, that's what you think her fight is about?</s>FAY: I can tell you that the people that have financed the initiatives that were put on the ballots where people voted to legalize marijuana were not doctors, they were not major medical groups in this country. They were businessmen who have admitted publicly that they would like to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized...</s>ZAHN: All right. But I asked you about Angel's story specifically. Do you not appreciate what she's going through and the fact that she believes this marijuana is greatly easing her pain? It's giving her almost a reason to live?</s>FAY: I certainly feel for anyone who's in pain. I don't question that at all. But I believe that people who are sick, who are in pain, should be getting good medicine. It is a fact that when people use drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, crack, they do feel good. That's why people use drugs. That does not mean that that's medicine. And it does not mean that it's making them better.</s>ZAHN: So Randy, what about that fear? That if you allow this to happen in every state in America, what you're doing is encouraging recreational users to become addicted to these kinds of drugs.</s>RANDY BARNETT, ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA USERS: Recreational use is still illegal under California law. California has made record drug busts for marijuana since the medical cannabis initiative has been enacted. So that's really a false issue here. What your viewers should be paying attention to is the constitutional issues in this case. And one of the things that they should be careful to know is that nothing the Supreme Court decides in this case will invalidate those state laws. Those state laws will remain in effect and they will give some protection to these patients in the ten states -- in the 11 states that have those laws. What this case is about is the limits of federal power to interfere with the operation of those laws by arresting people that California says may do what Angel and my other client Diane Monson (ph) are doing, protecting themselves and avoiding pain and suffering.</s>ZAHN: Calvina, do you think there's no such thing as compassionate use of marijuana? That's what the doctors call it when they don't believe that any other treatment will provide pain relief for their patients.</s>FAY: I don't think it's compassionate to mislead people to use a drug that's been shown to be addictive, harmful, has no medicinal value to it as far as scientific evidence shows, to mislead them and make them think that it's making them better. Like I said when you take a drug you do feel better. That's why people take drugs. But it does not mean that it's treating the condition. And it's allowing that person to go untreated with legitimate medicine that could possibly help them.</s>ZAHN: Randy, do you think these patients are being misled by false hope?</s>BARNETT: Absolutely not. And nobody's claiming that medical cannabis treats the underlying conditions. What medical cannabis largely does is allow patients to survive traditional chemotherapy. For example by allowing them to overcome the nausea that's associated with chemotherapy. It allows them to survive AIDS treatment by allowing them to overcome wasting syndrome. Nobody claims that cannabis itself is a cure. Cannabis makes possible other medications to work. And it also alleviates pain and suffering. I suggest that you take a look at the Institute for Medicines report on the usefulness of medical cannabis. The recommendation was that medical cannabis be available until safer mechanisms for delivering the chemicals that are in marijuana are developed by medical pharmaceutical companies.</s>ZAHN: So do you poke holes in that report, Calvina? You don't subscribe to any of it?</s>FAY: Absolutely, the report clearly says that there is absolutely no future in smoking marijuana as medicine. It does talk about the fact that THC, one of the ingredients in marijuana has medicinal value. And THC is already available in prescription form, FDA approved, marketed under the name of Marinol. That's not something we object to. So the THC is available already. It's FDA approved and prescribed. That's very different than taking a crude weed such as marijuana and smoking it and taking into your lungs, and the respiratory system hundreds of different compounds, many of which have been proven to be cancer-causing.</s>ZAHN: Randy, I see you shaking your head no. What part of that do you disagree with?</s>BARNETT: There are other cannabinoids in smoke marijuana that the Institute for Medicine found to be promising and useful therapeutically. There's no question, it's not just THC. Some people can't take THC. The other thing people don't tell you is that Marinol which has this THC is also intoxicating and that's one of the effects that people don't like when they use Marinol. So what the Institute for Medicine said was we really do need more effective delivery mechanisms. That's why they said there's no future for smoke marijuana. But in the meantime while the government obstructs research into these areas by denying for example sources of medical cannabis for testing purposes, all that patients have left is smoke marijuana and the Institute for Medicines recommends that they be available.</s>ZAHN: Well, you've both given us a lot to think about here this evening. Calvina Fay, Randy Barnett, thank you for both of your perspectives. And whether marijuana should be allowed for medical treatment is tonight's voting booth question. Just click on to CNN.com/paula, give us your opinion. And you can find more on the Supreme Court case and past medical marijuana cases, analysis, and in-depth coverage of the issue at CNN.com/law. When we come back, a brand-new twist in a long-running dispute over evolution and creation.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a good possibility that both science and the faith can coexist, and in fact they're both right.</s>ZAHN: The move to put religion in the science lab when we come back.