Pubdate: Tue, 22 May 2001
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Copyright: 2001 The Baltimore Sun, a Times Mirror Newspaper.
Contact:  http://www.sunspot.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/37
Author: Clarence Page
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)

ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has spoken. Federal anti-drug laws 
trump state laws that allow patients to have marijuana when their 
doctors recommend it.

That's sad news to Kathleen Marie "Kitty" Tucker, a 57-year-old 
lawyer and mother who favors the legalization of marijuana for 
medicinal use.

She could use some.

Since 1987 she has suffered from migraines and fibromyalgia, a 
chronic muscle pain disorder, too severe to let her work outside her 
suburban Maryland home.

She's been using such legal drugs as Marinol, a synthetic version of 
the active ingredient in marijuana. But none relieve her symptoms as 
well -- and with as few side effects -- as smoking marijuana used to, 
she says.

She knows because she used to grow her own marijuana in the basement 
of her family home in Takoma Park, a Washington suburb.

But, in 1999, her then-16-year-old daughter, in an apparent burst of 
teen rage, told the local police about mommy's indoor garden.

Weeks later, the charges were dropped. But, by then, Ms. Tucker's 
husband, Robert Alvarez, had lost his job as a senior policy adviser 
at the U.S. Energy Department, and the family had been put through an 
emotional and legal wringer.

Ms. Tucker's hopes for legal pot evaporated along with those of 
numerous other sufferers May 14 when the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 
against marijuana-supplying co-ops in California. Federal law does 
not allow the distribution of marijuana even to people whose doctors 
recommend it to alleviate symptoms of serious illness, the court 
ruled.

That ruling dealt a setback, if not a definitive blow, to the 
movement that, so far, has led to the legalization of medical 
marijuana in eight states plus the District of Columbia.

Sure, you can legalize medicinal marijuana all you want, the high 
court told the voters and legislators, but that doesn't mean 
Washington has to let it happen.

"It is very disappointing to see our democracy kicked away," Ms. 
Tucker said in a voice that sounded wracked with pain.

Yes, "kicked away" is a good way to describe the way marijuana, even 
for legitimate relief of illness, has become a political football. 
Poll after poll tends to show that most people support 
doctor-approved medicinal use of marijuana.

Yet, the issue has failed with most Washington politicians and most 
state legislatures, except for Hawaii. It is as if the issue has 
nothing to do with real science or even real people anymore, just 
politics and posturing.

Nobody ever lost an election by promising to be "tough" on drugs, 
even when it means being unnecessarily tough on the sick.

Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the high court's ruling, offered a 
good example. When he cited the federal statute that says marijuana 
has "no currently accepted medical use," he was expressing a 
political view, not a scientific one.

Lawmakers could simply look at the 1999 report by the Institute of 
Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. It confirmed 
the effectiveness of marijuana's active components in treating pain, 
nausea and the anorexic wasting syndrome associated with AIDS.

The report did caution against smoking marijuana for more than six 
months. After all, smoking anything is hazardous to your health. 
Unfortunately, the study did not discuss vaporizers, a popular 
non-smoking alternative in the California marijuana clubs that were 
parties in the Supreme Court case.

So more research needs to be done. Both sides of the debate can agree 
on that. Yet, Washington politicians have been extremely reluctant to 
grant government-approved marijuana for research. So, new research 
gets stuck in a catch-22: The politicians say we can't legalize 
marijuana because there's not enough research; then they don't fund 
the research. How convenient.

Opponents of legalization say that prosecutors probably won't spend 
much time or money going after sick patients. They're probably right. 
It wouldn't be worth it. Juries would be reluctant to convict, 
especially in a state or town that voted overwhelmingly for 
legalization.

But, as Kitty Tucker's case shows, you don't have to be prosecuted 
after a drug arrest to be punished by it.

First the punishment, then -- guess what? No trial. That's what 
happens when politicians care less about people than they do about 
posturing.

During his presidential campaign, President Bush said he opposed 
legalizing medical marijuana in Texas but thought the federal 
government should leave the question up to the states. That's a 
campaign promise he should keep.

Clarence Page is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe