Pubdate: Sun, 20 May 2001
Source: Daily Camera (CO)
Copyright: 2001 The Daily Camera.
Contact:  http://www.bouldernews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/103

UP IN SMOKE

In the wake of last week's unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision that 
marijuana cannot legally be used for medical purposes, it may be tempting 
to point an accusing finger at the court.

But the 8-0 decision (Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself) indicates 
just how clear the matter is, according to current law. The ruling does not 
overturn laws approved by compassionate voters in eight states, including 
Colorado, which allow certain seriously ill patients to use marijuana to 
relieve their symptoms. Rather, it simply affirms that the drug's current 
listing on Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, which means, 
according to the definition established by Congress, that it has no 
"currently accepted medical use."

Sure, some might paste the justices - especially the five "conservatives" 
inclined to lean toward states' rights, the 2000 presidential election to 
the contrary - for so bluntly endorsing federal power. Others might hammer 
them for pretending medical expertise where there is none. But on the 
whole, the judges made a sound legal decision.

In fact, the decision tosses the question right back where it belongs, into 
the lap of Congress. But there, alas, we're all but certain of its fate.

Terrified of being tabbed "soft on drugs" in the next election (as far in 
the future as far too many elected officials can see, any more), lawmakers 
simply won't be brave enough to reclassify pot. We don't expect to see the 
kind of upsurge in common sense and compassion that would allow them to 
admit the obvious: Marijuana, while not a plate of alfalfa sprouts, clearly 
is not as harmful as other Schedule I drugs such as cocaine, heroin and 
methamphetamine.

Despite the law's claims of certainty, the question of marijuana's medical 
efficacy is far from settled. Patients living with AIDS have found that it 
stimulates appetite, reducing dangerous weight loss; it can reduce the 
nausea experienced by chemotherapy patients; and some patients have found 
it effective in relieving the symptoms of everything from glaucoma to epilepsy.

Given the evidence - much anecdotal, but some established in careful 
studies - it seems particularly cruel to tell patients they should have no 
expectation of protection from the law if they seek to relieve their 
symptoms with marijuana. Ironically, this could mean that the most 
desperate patients will turn to illicit sources of the drug. And given the 
court's narrow ruling, federal law likely will supersede all state laws, 
which means that patients who grow even a tiny amount of marijuana for 
personal medical use could find cops banging down their doors.

It's certainly true that one subgroup of the medical marijuana lobby is 
simply looking to leverage an ultimate legalization of the drug for all 
uses. But as sensible people recognize, nothing about medical marijuana 
access requires us to loosen laws further.

But, now that we think of it, why come down so hard on marijuana? After 
all, neither alcohol nor tobacco, which contribute to the deaths of many 
thousands of Americans every year, has any "currently accepted medical 
use," either. And unlike marijuana, those two drugs are powerfully addictive.

That's not so much an argument for legalization of pot as an illustration 
of the egregious hypocrisy of this nation's drug laws. We don't expect 
Congress to develop any common sense about marijuana in the near future, 
but maybe some day it will realize that it easily can change the law to 
help suffering people without making it easier for kids to get stoned.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth