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