The case before the U.S. Supreme Court
regarding the validity of state laws governing the medical use of
marijuana is more about federal authority to regulate interstate
commerce than the use of pot to alleviate pain. And it is appropriate
that the feds win this case.
Nonetheless, this whole legal battle would be unnecessary if the
federal government had responded in a reasonable way to the grass-roots
(excuse the pun) movement to find a way to allow seriously ill patients
to use marijuana as a palliative. Instead, the Justice Department,
fueled by John Ashcroft's missionary zeal, has gone out of its way to
challenge state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana, charging
that such laws encourage drug abuse.
Currently, 11 states have laws on the books that permit the legal use
of marijuana -- with a doctor's consent -- to relieve pain resulting
from cancer, AIDS and other wasting diseases. Many of the patients who
use marijuana are terminal, including one of the plaintiffs in the case
before the Supreme Court, Angel Raich of Oakland, Calif., who suffers
from an inoperable brain tumor. She tried dozens of prescription
medicines before turning to pot.
A wealth of research and patient testimony confirms that marijuana
serves a medical purpose that other drugs can't. The efforts by states
to find a way to allow patients to use marijuana legally reflects the
consensus that it has real medical value.
But the federal government has stubbornly refused to recognize the
medicinal role marijuana can play. Instead, the Ashcroft Justice
Department has done its best to deny patients access to the drug.
In strictly legal terms, the federal government is on solid ground in
this case. The hodgepodge of state laws governing the medical use of
marijuana demand federal oversight. To uphold the right of states to
govern the disbursement of an otherwise illegal drug threatens federal
authority over interstate commerce. And that authority is the crucial
foundation for government regulation of civil rights laws, environmental
protection, labor laws and more.
The obvious solution, however, would for the Food and Drug
Administration to designate marijuana for medical use and regulate it as
it does so many other more dangerous and addictive drugs. States then
would be free to enact sensible laws to regulate medical marijuana using
federal guidelines.
More likely, the feds, fearing that they would appear to be
sanctioning the recreational use of marijuana, will simply continue to
dismantle state laws allowing its medical use. And in so doing, they
will deny relief to thousands of people who might benefit from this
drug.
Even if justices rule against plaintiffs in this case, we hope the
ruling will contain language that encourages the government to look past
hidebound attitudes toward marijuana and recognize its proven medical
value.
