Get Active Subscribe Support Us

THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DEBATE

A few thoughts on Nathan Riley's commentary, "Marijuana and the Law" ( Jul.  21-27 ).  First, the Supreme Court's ruling and the push by some California cities to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries hardly constitute a "one-two punch" to the medical marijuana movement.  The high court for the first time declared unconditionally, "Marijuana has valid therapeutic purposes"--a historic milestone that is arguably much more important than the technical effect of the ruling, which simply maintained the status quo.  State medical marijuana laws remain valid and fully in force, but do not confer immunity from federal prosecution.  That's the situation patients have lived with for years.

As for local regulation, this is a good and necessary development.  No one in the medical marijuana movement wants a Wild West situation with no rules and no accountability.  Medical marijuana dispensaries must follow the law and be good neighbors.  Responsible local regulation is the best way to ensure this--and the biggest obstacle to effective local regulation is federal law that treats anyone providing medical marijuana to those living with AIDS or cancer as no different than common drug dealers.

Second, the saga in Rhode Island is far from over.  The governor's veto of the medical marijuana bill was instantly and overwhelmingly overridden by the State Senate.  A House override vote will come later this summer.

Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C.