Pubdate: Wed, 15 Jun 2005
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2005 The Sacramento Bee
Note: Does not publish letters from outside its circulation area.
Author: John W. Schuff


For those on both sides of the medicinal pot debate, there seems to be 
little concern, or even understanding, of the greater constitutional issue. 
If asked, I doubt that more than a small few would even know what the 10th 
Amendment says, or why it matters. Lacking the promise of the Bill of 
Rights, our founding fathers would have been unable to ratify the 
Constitution, were not the individual states guaranteed protection from the 
intrusion of an overly strong central government.

Facts: We have a state law permitting pot smoking for medical purposes. We 
have a U.S. attorney general who has chosen not to support the will of this 
state's voters, or to defend the 10th Amendment. The feds have for decades 
chipped away at the sovereignty of states, which barely raise a whimper 
lest the purse strings be cut.

Cancer patients unable to swallow pills containing THC (pot's active 
ingredient) need something to increase their suppressed appetite. Answer? 
Government controlled production of inhaled (not smoked) THC prescribed by 
MDs. Just like for asthma patients.

And, no, I didn't vote for Proposition 215. Its vague, poorly worded 
provisions led us where we are today.

- - John W. Schuff, Rancho Cordova
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom