MEDICAL MARIJUANA: RULING PROTECTS PRESCRIBING PHYSICIANS

      Contending that federal medical marijuana policies "violate
 a doctor's right to free speech as well as the patient-physician
 relationship," U.S. District Court Judge Fern Smith ruled
 yesterday that the Justice Department "cannot interfere with
 doctors who recommend marijuana to seriously ill patients," SAN
 FRANCISCO CHRONICLE.  Smith wrote, "The government's fear that
 frank dialogue between physicians and patients about medical
 marijuana might foster drug use" doesn't justify putting
 restrictions on a doctor's ability "to talk frankly with a
 patient" (Wallace, 5/1).  The ruling applies only to physicians
 treating patients with HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, or certain
 "chronic, debilitating" muscle seizures; doctors will be allowed
 to "recommend marijuana to patients as long as they do not help
 them obtain the drug," SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER reports (Lat, 5/1). 
 Judge Smith issued yesterday's temporary injunction in a class
 action lawsuit filed earlier this year by a group of California
 doctors and patients who opposed the Clinton administration's
 "threatened ... crackdown" on doctors who prescribe marijuana to
 patients (see AHL 2/10).  The injunction will remain in place
 until the lawsuit is heard at trial, unless a higher court
 overturns Smith's ruling (LaGanga/Bailey, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
 5/1).
      VOLLEYS:  Graham Boyd, lead attorney for the plaintiffs,
 called the ruling a "first round triumph," also noting that it
 "means the federal war on drugs, which became a war on doctors,
 has changed dramatically" (EXAMINER, 5/1).  "I think the judge
 hammered the federal government for a policy of threatening
 doctors and for interfering with patients' health care," Boyd
 said (CHRONICLE, 5/1).  The TIMES reports that Clinton
 administration officials "were scurrying to find holes in Smith's
 ruling, but refused to speculate on whether they might appeal." 
 Bob Weiner, a spokesperson for the White House Office of National
 Drug Control Policy, said, "This ruling has a lot of ingredients
 to it" (5/1).  He added, "I understand that this is a 42-page
 document, and there are a lot of complicated issues involved.  We
 haven't seen the ruling yet.  We are looking forward to reviewing
 it and figuring out where we stand" (CHRONICLE, 5/1).