Pubdate: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 Source: Helena Independent Record (MT) Copyright: 2004 Helena Independent Record Contact: http://helenair.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1187 Cited: Initiative 148 ( www.montanacares.org/ ) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) WHY DO VOTERS ALWAYS PICK POT? As the United States Supreme Court listened to arguments Monday over medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation, we got to wondering: Why, in the face of adamant opposition from those involved in the "war on drugs," have voters invariably approved such laws? It can't be a matter of politics, for medical marijuana initiatives have been approved everywhere they have been presented to voters, whether in red states or in blue. Eleven states now have such laws - Montana being the most recent - and it's starting to look as though similar measures would pass just about anywhere. After all, Montana, law-abiding red state that it is, gave 60 percent of its presidential vote to George Bush. But its vote to approve medical marijuana was even stronger. Nearly 62 percent of the voters backed the idea. What gives? For one thing, people are compassionate. Nearly everybody knows somebody who is suffering from Parkinson's disease, chemotherapy for cancer, AIDS, or some other painful problem, and few of us want to deny them anything that might ease their suffering. For another thing, people weren't born yesterday. Justice Department lawyers can assert that marijuana has no medical uses until they're blue in the face, but people are more likely to believe statements to the contrary from prestigious medical associations and people whose pain has been relieved by marijuana. Even conservative, southern states like Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, which have no medical marijuana laws, have joined the Supreme Court case on the side of medical marijuana. They say it is the business of the states, not the federal government or some federal drug czar, to provide "for the health, safety, welfare and morals of their citizens." All this doesn't mean people are scofflaws. They want marijuana strictly limited to the ill people who doctors believe will benefit from it. While Montana was passing its medical marijuana measure, the voters in Oregon rejected a measure that would have drastically expanded its existing medical marijuana program. These aren't necessarily the issues the high court will consider. The justices may base their ruling on more legalistic issues, tell proponents of medical marijuana to take their arguments to health regulators, or buy the contention (rejected by voters) that medical marijuana will send a message that it's OK to take any illegal drug. But it's interesting that in these politically divisive times, people still can come together when it comes to putting painkilling over politics. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake