Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Boston Herald (MA)
Copyright: 2005 The Boston Herald, Inc
Contact:  http://news.bostonherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/53
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

A WIN FOR U.S. DRUG LAWS

Well, just have a toke on this one, dude!

Yes,  federal drug laws really mean what they say, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in a  6-3 decision released yesterday. Even if California
and nine other states  (including nearby Maine and Vermont) would
permit people to grow, smoke and or  obtain marijuana with the consent
of a doctor to treat certain medical conditions, those laws run afoul
of federal drug laws. While most  are sympathetic to the needs of
patients with AIDS or cancer who want to use the  drug to relieve
nausea, the potential for abuse of any system set up to regulate  the
use of an otherwise recreational drug remains enormous. In the court's
main  decision, Justice John Paul Stevens alluded to that issue,
noting, "Our cases  have taught us that there are some unscrupulous
physicians who overprescribe  when it is sufficiently profitable to do
so." It is  perhaps most intriguing that the court's most liberal
members, such as Stevens,  were solidly aligned in support of federal
drug laws, while it's most  conservative members - Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra  Day O'Connor and Clarence
Thomas - thought states ought to have the right to set  their own
rules. And when some Maine resident with a baggie of home-grown weed
(for medicinal purposes only, mind you) crosses the border into
Massachusetts,  then what?

As Stevens  wrote, if there's enough voter sentiment to revisit the
nation's policies on  marijuana, let that happen where it should
happen - in  Congress.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek