Here are two key excerpts from the ruling, and a statement by lead counsel, Lawrence E. Hirsch, Esq.)

From The Judicial Decision Dated March 10, 1999:
From The Honorable Marvin Katz, SJ:
United States District Court
For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania In Philadelphia

Kiyoshi Kuromiya, et al., Plaintiffs

v.

The United States Of America, Defendant

Civil Action No. 98-3439

Excerpts From The Ruling By The Honorable Marvin Katz:

From Paragraph 1:
"The law does not permit the use of marijuana to treat a variety of ailments ranging from glaucoma to AIDS from which the plaintiffs claim they suffer and for which marijuana relieves symptoms. Yet, according to the complaint and the representations of the government’s attorney at hearing, the government itself provides marijuana to another group of persons suffering illnesses, through their physicians. Plaintiffs now mount a constitutional challenge to the laws that prohibit therapeutic marijuana. This court concludes that the laws are constitutional.

However, the court cannot reach the same conclusion as to the equal protection issues arising from the distinction between those who may and may not legally use medicinal marijuana, as to which the test is whether the government’s distinction is rational. The answer must come from facts, not the abstractions and dogma presently in the record."

From Section IV, Conclusion:
"In dismissing the constitutional challenges to the CSA, the court does not wish to minimize the suffering that the plaintiffs have experienced or the degree to which the threat of criminal sanctions may have exacerbated their conditions. The difficulty is, however, that even while acknowledging the sympathy that all must feel for people afflicted with painful, debilitating physical ailments that cannot be remedied, the court cannot take the place of Congress. Where reasonable people may differ, the court is bound to defer to the will of the legislature. The court cannot avoid noticing that the jurisdictions that have adopted policies more congruent with those desired by the plaintiffs have achieved such change through referenda and ballot measures rather than through the courts."

"A different conclusion must be reached regarding the plaintiffs' claims regarding access to the compassionate use program. The court cannot rule as a matter of law on the rationality of the government's action without giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to disprove any possible justification for the action."

Statement From Lawrence Elliot Hirsch, Chief Counsel For Plaintiffs:

"We are gratified by Judge Katz’ decision to recognize the central equal protection of law claim of the plaintiffs’ class that it is fundamentally unfair, and apparently irrational for the United States government to supply therapeutic cannabis to a total of 7 or 8 Americans because it is medically necessary for their conditions. Now, the entire public can be informed about medical marijuana and learn the truth about a non-toxic miracle plant which could be the greatest natural resource in America.

Our legal team will consider the next action that the action class will take. We will consider further appeals on the constitutional issues.

The government has no right to appeal from Judge Katz’s decision to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to establish their equal protection claim for compassionate access to government-supplied therapeutic cannabis.