Pubdate: Sat, 11 Dec 2004
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Copyright: 2004 The Miami Herald
Contact:  http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/262
Author: Patt Morrison, LA Times
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich (Angel Raich)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?232 (Chronic Pain)

THE POLITICS OF USING MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE

Guess which one of the following remarks -- all made by Supreme Court
justices during last week's arguments about California's medical
marijuana law -- was uttered by the Supreme from the Golden State:

* 'Go to the FDA and say, 'Take this off the dangerous drugs list. .
. . Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum.'
"

* "Seems to me the sensible assumption is they're going to get it
on the street."

* "If we rule for the respondents in this case, do you think the
street price of marijuana would go up or down?"

Dude! Right the first time! It's Quote No. 3, from Justice Anthony
Kennedy, the Sacramento homey who owes marijuana a big confirmation
vote of thanks: He made it to the court because the nominee before him
got dumped after admitting that he'd smoked marijuana.

This is California's second date with the Supreme Court on the subject
of Cannabis Rx. The first time, after California led 10 other states
in writing itself a prescription for medical marijuana, the court
unanimously folded its black-robed arms and said Nope to medicinal
dope when it was handed out at "cannabis clubs."

The matter is back for seconds because more medicinal marijuanists
were busted, barely a month after 9/11, by John Ashcroft's Justice
Department, which evidently already had swiftly defeated terrorism and
had some free time on its hands. The California women whose case was
argued last week grew their own to counter ailments that could keep an
entire medical school occupied.

The legalities at issue in the case are grounded in interstate
commerce. But let's not kid ourselves; this case is really before the
Supreme Court for one reason: Because, despite Quote No. 2 from
Justice Stephen Breyer, that regulation is better than referendum, no
politician and no regulator answerable to a politician has the guts to
stick up publicly for the medical merits of marijuana. Even if it ends
world hunger, makes peace between Palestinians and Israelis and sends
the Cubs to the World Series, no politician will go there; the
kiss-of-death risk of an endorsement by the Cheech and Chong Bong
Club is too terrifying.

There are even legal precedents available for its use as medicine, if
the pols weren't too wimpy to use them. Under a mid-1970s court order,
the federal government grew medical-grade marijuana in Oxford, Miss.,
supplying legal dope to a few aging and ailing patients. In California
in the 1920s, marijuana generally was banned under the state Poison
Act, but druggists kept it, and doctors prescribed it legally for pain
relief.

If the Puritan politicians suspect that some patient might be having a
good time, one toke at a time, I offer this rebuttal: It is not fun.
How do I know this? Because I have had glaucoma since I was in my
teens, and some years ago, after every prescription drug failed and
before I resorted to surgery, my doctor let me know obliquely that
marijuana could do me good. I dutifully inhaled almost every night.
Taking drag after drag under doctor's order was a drag.

What is fun is watching how the cheerleaders for states' rights sort
themselves out when the state's right in question makes their skin
crawl. Ashcroft, the lame-duck attorney general, would conceivably be
fine with it if you were dying of cancer in Oregon and killed yourself
with an assault weapon, but he would lock you and your doctor up if
the two of you tried, under Oregon state law, to find a more-peaceful
and painless exit from life.

On the other side, you won't see medical marijuana on the ballot in
Alabama, Louisiana or Mississippi, but at least they see it's in their
interest to side with states'-rights medical marijuana this time,
because next time they'll need a clear route to make their own
arguments -- like, say, when Alabama is called to account for the bit
in its constitution about school segregation, which its voters refused
to eliminate last month.

About 60 years after states' rights meant the right to segregate and
discriminate, we're overdue for a Blue States Rights Revolt. It was
Chief Justice William Rehnquist who 10 years ago made it clear that
states' rights were the next civil rights; it's time to hold him to
his word. He wasn't on the bench to hear the arguments. He is out
ailing after being treated for thyroid cancer -- and one of several
justices with medical problems.

Angel Raich, the Oakland, Calif., woman whose case is one of those
before the court, had Rehnquist on her mind last week at least as much
as her case may be on his. The other day, on the steps outside the
Supreme Court, she wondered aloud whether his suffering might "soften
his heart about the issue." He might even find, she suggested, "that
cannabis would help him a lot."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake