Pubdate: Thu, 17 May 2001 Source: Times Argus (VT) Copyright: 2001 Times Argus Contact: http://timesargus.nybor.com/Opinion/Letters/ Website: http://www.timesargus.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/893 MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THE LAW Many Americans with serious illnesses, including cancer and AIDS, have been lucky enough to find a drug that can greatly ease their symptoms. But they also suffer some bad luck: It's marijuana. For a long time, people needing to use pot as medicine have had to contend with the inconvenient fact that the drug is illegal. Many states have elected to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis. But the federal government has not. And when Californians approved a medical marijuana initiative, the U.S. Department of Justice refused to go along. It went to court to close down "cannabis dispensaries" set up to distribute pot to patients whose doctors recommended it. Supporters of medical marijuana took heart when a federal appeals court ruled that federal law must be interpreted to allow a "medical necessity" exception for people with serious ailments that may respond only to cannabis. But Monday, the Supreme Court gave its response, which boiled down to: "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" In an opinion written by Clarence Thomas, the court said that since Congress didn't explicitly create such an exception, the courts must reject any medical defense. The justices were unanimous (except for Stephen Breyer, who recused himself), and when that happens, they usually are on solid legal ground. Here, they reached the right conclusion: Courts should not be in the business of revising laws merely because their enforcement may have regrettable consequences. Congress, acting as the agent of the American people, is perfectly capable of considering the evidence on the medical value of marijuana and deciding whether it warrants special treatment. In fact, Congress has done exactly that and chosen not to permit therapeutic use of the drug. That this decision is unwise doesn't mean that our elected legislators didn't have every right to make it. Unwise, though, is an understatement. One of the ailments for which marijuana has been used is AIDS wasting syndrome, a severe loss of appetite that causes emaciation. A 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that marijuana has proved its effectiveness in treating this condition, as well as the nausea that often goes with cancer chemotherapy. The report found no evidence that the medical use of pot would contribute to drug abuse. Given all this, denying marijuana to desperately ill people is pointlessly cruel. But anyone who favors a more humane approach will have to hope that popular sentiment will force a change in federal law. Voters in seven states, from Arizona to Maine, have voted to allow cannabis therapy, suggesting that the public can endorse marijuana for medical use without legalizing it for recreational use. It's time Congress did the same. Many Americans with serious illnesses, including cancer and AIDS, have been lucky enough to find a drug that can greatly ease their symptoms. But they also suffer some bad luck: It's marijuana. For a long time, people needing to use pot as medicine have had to contend with the inconvenient fact that the drug is illegal. Many states have elected to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis. But the federal government has not. And when Californians approved a medical marijuana initiative, the U.S. Department of Justice refused to go along. It went to court to close down "cannabis dispensaries" set up to distribute pot to patients whose doctors recommended it. Supporters of medical marijuana took heart when a federal appeals court ruled that federal law must be interpreted to allow a "medical necessity" exception for people with serious ailments that may respond only to cannabis. But Monday, the Supreme Court gave its response, which boiled down to: "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" In an opinion written by Clarence Thomas, the court said that since Congress didn't explicitly create such an exception, the courts must reject any medical defense. The justices were unanimous (except for Stephen Breyer, who recused himself), and when that happens, they usually are on solid legal ground. Here, they reached the right conclusion: Courts should not be in the business of revising laws merely because their enforcement may have regrettable consequences. Congress, acting as the agent of the American people, is perfectly capable of considering the evidence on the medical value of marijuana and deciding whether it warrants special treatment. In fact, Congress has done exactly that and chosen not to permit therapeutic use of the drug. That this decision is unwise doesn't mean that our elected legislators didn't have every right to make it. Unwise, though, is an understatement. One of the ailments for which marijuana has been used is AIDS wasting syndrome, a severe loss of appetite that causes emaciation. A 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that marijuana has proved its effectiveness in treating this condition, as well as the nausea that often goes with cancer chemotherapy. The report found no evidence that the medical use of pot would contribute to drug abuse. Given all this, denying marijuana to desperately ill people is pointlessly cruel. But anyone who favors a more humane approach will have to hope that popular sentiment will force a change in federal law. Voters in seven states, from Arizona to Maine, have voted to allow cannabis therapy, suggesting that the public can endorse marijuana for medical use without legalizing it for recreational use. It's time Congress did the same. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens