Pubdate: Wed, 16 May 2001
Source: Kennebec Journal (ME)
Website: http://www.centralmaine.com/
Address: 274 Western Ave., Augusta, ME 04330
Feedback: http://www.centralmaine.com/view/lettertoed.shtml/
Contact:  2001 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc
Fax: (207) 623-2220

FEDERAL MARIJUANA DECISION CLOUDS STATE'S IMPLEMENTATION

The U.S. Supreme Court could not have been any clearer or more
emphatic on Monday in declaring that no exception exists to exempt
"medical marijuana" users from federal anti-drug law
enforcement.

The unanimous decision applied the logic of the court to the
application of federal law relating to "schedule I" drugs, such as
marijuana.

"Nothing in the statute ... suggests that there are two tiers of
schedule I narcotics. ... On the contrary, the statute consistently
treats all schedule I drugs alike," according to the unanimous opinion.

The ruling is particularly meaningful for the eight states that have
passed laws allowing the use of marijuana for relief from the effects
of several illnesses - notably cancer and AIDS.

But while the nation's highest court ruled that federal law made no
provision for legal marijuana use, the decision did not specifically
address enforcement issues where state and federal laws contradict.

In some instances, that could mean that only federal authorities would
prosecute perceived violations of laws pertaining to marijuana use,
whereas state officials would not. California officials have already
indicated their unwillingness to go after medical marijuan users there.

Most people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes have legitimate
illnesses that would make their prosecution seem heartless.

Nevertheless, the court's ruling has the practical effect of forcing
states like Maine to reconsider how to implement a state-approved law
- - and resulting distribution system - that is contrary to federal ruling.

Purportedly, the sought-for effects of marijuana are available already
in a precription drug, and the development of a skin-surface patch for
absorption of the narcotic is pending.

That, however, is a technicality that has only an indirect bearing
upon the existence - and presumed applicability - of state law.

However, if the lawmakers can satisfy themselves that the palliative
effects of marijuana can be obtained as readily and as inexpensively
as the schedule I drug, then there is no apparent need to flout the
federal ruling.

Maine voters accepted a 1999 referendum proposal allowing some
patients to grow and use limited amounts of marijuana. Legislators had
subsequently been asked by the state's attorney general to withhold
adopting any implementation plan for the law until the Supreme Court
ruled.

Now that the decision has been made, lawyers for the state will review
it and advise the legislature on how to proceed. One thing is certain.
There is no need at the moment for the lawmakers to pass the marijuana
distribution proposal before them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew