Pubdate: Thu, 09 Jun 2005
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Copyright: 2005 The Arizona Republic
Contact:  http://www.arizonarepublic.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Gonzales v. Raich)

KEEP LID ON POT

Medical Marijuana an Issue Best Left to the States, Not Federal
Government

If Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana inhibits
efforts to legalize the drug outright, that's a good thing.

And rest assured: Legalizing marijuana and other addictive drugs has
been at least part of the rationale behind the movement to let sick
people use the substance without fear of arrest.

But that said, there is reason to be concerned about just where the
powers of the federal government end under the court's expansive
interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

The court ruled, technically, on the breadth and reach of the
Constitution's provision for federal regulation of interstate
commerce. And it ruled that marijuana, even if locally grown, falls
under that provision.

In the 6-3 vote, the more liberal justices ruled in favor of larger
federal power, and thus against states' rights to loosen their drug
laws.

The more conservative justices - William Rehnquist and Clarence
Thomas, joined by Arizona's middle-of-the-road Sandra Day O'Connor -
came down on the side of states' rights and, by extension, the pot
smokers.

As O'Connor wrote in her dissent, making clear she would not have
voted for the medical marijuana initiative at issue: "This
overreaching (by the court) stifles an express choice by some states,
concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate
medical marijuana differently."

We opposed Arizona's first crack at legalizing medical marijuana, in
the form of a 1996 ballot proposition. That proposition so loosened
the state's drug laws that the Legislature tried to rescind its most
egregious provisions, only to be rebuffed by voters in 1998.

As a result, Arizona has a medical marijuana law. It has gone unused,
however, because doctors are loath to write prescriptions for the
stuff in violation of federal law.

Advocates of medical marijuana, to be sure, are not without their
poster children. Many are frightfully ill, their suffering
indisputably real. Should they not be allowed access to whatever might
give comfort?

The humanitarian and libertarian answer would seem to be
"yes."

But it is not without reason that marijuana remains criminalized. And
its medical efficacy is still very much in doubt, despite the
heartrending anecdotal tales of those who say they can't get along
without it.

Having said that, we do not welcome the thought of gendarmes smashing
down the front doors of cancer-stricken pot users and hauling them off
to jail.

There are wiser and more important ways to use our law enforcement
resources. And it's doubtful that's what the justices had in mind when
they ruled as they did.

Monday's decision gives the country something of a timeout on the
question of medical marijuana. It puts the ball in the court of
Congress, which could, if it chose, pass legislation allowing states
to enact medical marijuana laws.

That may be our best option, although we do not welcome further
opening of the door to medical marijuana. Still, this is an issue best
left to the states. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake