Pubdate: Wed, 08 Jun 2005
Source: Capital Times, The  (WI)
Copyright: 2005 The Capital Times
Contact:  http://www.captimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/73
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

COURT RULING WAS DOPEY

It is not often that this newspaper finds itself in agreement with
U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Clarence
Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor, three of the Supreme Court's more
conservative members.

But Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor were right to dissent from the
court's wrongheaded decision to permit the federal government to
prosecute sick people who use marijuana as a painkiller - even in
states where voters and legislators have determined that such use is
lawful.

The three dissenters are to be applauded for their refusal to be
buffaloed by the drug warriors who peddle the fantasy that marijuana
should continue to be viewed as a dangerous drug that is unacceptable
for any use.

O'Connor's dissent was particularly significant. While she indicated
that she would not have voted in favor of the state initiatives or
legislative bills that have legalized medical marijuana in California
and nine other states, the justice explained that it was wrong for the
federal government to seek to undermine "an express choice by some
states, concerned for the lives and liberties or their people, to
regulate medical marijuana differently."

O'Connor's dissent is important because it makes clear where the
distinction ought to be drawn. Of course, the federal government has a
right - indeed, a responsibility - to intervene when the lives and
liberties of Americans are threatened by the states, as has been the
case when federal authorities have acted to protect the rights of
racial minorities, women and people with disabilities. But to
intervene to deny Americans with serious diseases a generally
well-regarded treatment option represents the worst sort of meddling
by the federal government.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling suggests that there are few judicial
options left for supporters of medical marijuana. But John Walters,
the Bush administration's director of national drug control policy,
was wrong when he claimed on Monday, "Today's decision marks the end
of medical marijuana as a political issue."

The high court's majority made it clear that federal legislative
avenues remain open. Congress has the power to remove barriers to the
distribution and use of medical marijuana. While such a bold step may
be unlikely in the short term, Congress also has the power to create
exemptions for states where voters and legislators have decided, in
the words of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, to respect "the
rights of patients to have access to the medicine they need to survive
and lead healthier lives."

Noelle Davis, executive director of Austin-based Texans for Medical
Marijuana, is right when she says, "This gives the opportunity to
Congress to step up and do something."

Will it happen? Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a physician who has
co-sponsored legislation to allow states to decide without federal
involvement whether people can use marijuana with a doctor's approval,
says, "I think support is strong, but (members of Congress) are still
frightened a little bit by the politics of it. If you had a secret
vote in Congress, I'll bet 80 percent would vote for it."

That figure is roughly parallel to the sentiments expressed by
Americans in polling with regard to medical marijuana. What's
important now is for citizens to let their members of Congress know
that the federal government has no business taking people's medicine
away from them.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek