Pubdate: Wed, 08 Jun 2005
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2005 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

THE COURT AND MARIJUANA

We read the Supreme Court's decision on the medicinal use of marijuana
with mixed emotions. We certainly wish that the Justice Department
could be weaned from the gross misuse of the federal Controlled
Substances Act that led to its campaign against the use of marijuana
by terminally ill people in the 11 states where it is legal for
doctors to prescribe it. But we take very seriously the court's
concern about protecting the Commerce Clause, the vital constitutional
principle that has allowed the federal government to thwart evils like
child labor and segregation.

The dissenters in the 6-to-3 decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor
and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, opened the
door for conservatives who want to sharply reduce Congress's use of
its power to regulate and protect interstate commerce. These
conservatives want to turn the clock back to before the New Deal, when
workers were exploited, factories polluted at will and the elderly
faced insecure retirements.

The law the Bush administration used in attempting to crack down on
medical marijuana in states where it is legal was intended to stop
interstate trafficking in dangerous drugs. Most Americans would agree
that using small amounts of marijuana in private under a doctor's
supervision has nothing to do with narcotics trafficking. To stop the
Justice Department from pursuing this ideological obsession, Congress
should amend the law to specifically exempt prescribed marijuana. It
should not be a partisan issue; both red and blue states have laws
allowing the medicinal use of marijuana.

We hope good sense prevails. And we hope that Justice Antonin Scalia,
who seems to be campaigning for chief justice, remembers that he
concurred with the majority this week the next time the court hears a
federal-powers case on, say, air pollution. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake