Pubdate: Tue, 14 Jun 2005
Source: Philadelphia Daily News (PA)
Copyright: 2005 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.
Contact:  http://www.phillynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/339
Author: Christine M. Flowers
Note: Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Gonzales v. Raich)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

COURT WROTE RIGHT PROSCRIPTION

DURING THE final days of my father's battle with lung cancer, he
struggled to remain conscious.

Peace only came courtesy of the morphine that my mother administered
under strict orders from his doctor. Back then, in 1982, pain
management consisted primarily of heavy doses of narcotics that would
dull the pain but also the senses, forcing patients to trade coherence
for comfort.

So, given my experience, it is difficult to say this: The Supreme
Court was right to hold that the medical marijuana initiatives in 11
mostly western states are unconstitutional.

I have profound sympathy for people paralyzed with pain; human decency
demands no less.

But the court was compelled to rule that states can't unilaterally
violate federal drug laws even when the purpose is noble and the scope
limited. There is the small problem of the Constitution, which
prohibits any action that would negatively affect interstate commerce.
While some people might be scratching their heads and saying, "What
does the commerce clause have to do with pot?," students of history
know that it was precisely this section of the Constitution that
facilitated the expansion of civil rights, and has helped curb the
plague of interstate child abuse.

Its reach is powerful and can affect the most intimate parts of our
lives. This was the thrust of the majority opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich:
preventing interstate trafficking in illegal substances. But looking
beyond the narrow focus of the court, there's another reason that these
medical marijuana initiatives cried out to be invalidated.

The Controlled Substances Act is the federal law criminalizing the use
and sale of certain drugs, including marijuana. While a large segment
of the population thinks that the government should stay out of the
morals business and legalize drugs, this would be a critical mistake.

In the first place, there is little scientific evidence that smoking
marijuana acts as a painkiller. The sympathetic and highly subjective
testimony of patients is not enough to justify these claims, and the
limited number of studies in the field are inconclusive.

While there is some indication that smoking pot helps combat the
nausea suffered by cancer patients, this alone should not be enough
support legalization.

And here's where I get trounced by the decriminalization lobby as
being naive, but marijuana is a gateway drug. Those who use it often
turn to other, more lethal substances like heroine and cocaine.

Of course, we've all seen "Reefer Madness" and laughed at its
exaggerations. Marijuana may pose a less immediate threat than harder
drugs. But there is no question that it diminishes our ability to
reason and react, and anesthetizes the brain - probably why some
consider it the ideal painkiller, since it dulls sensation.

So, if people want to smoke pot solely for pain management, why
shouldn't they be entitled to some relief? And, to follow the
libertarian argument, why should we care what other people do with
their bodies? Good questions, which implicate personal freedom and the
limits on compassion.

But here's a good answer: Letting states enact their own legislation,
no matter how narrowly defined, frustrates federal drug policy, making
it virtually impossible to maintain uniform national standards. Given
the growing scourge of drug abuse among this country's youth, those
who support legalization have a public relations nightmare in trying
to convince society that decriminalization is a question of personal
freedom, and the right thing to do.

That's why I have much more than a mere suspicion that some of the
strongest proponents of medical marijuana are not really concerned
with the victims of cancer and other debilitating diseases. They just
see this as a more sympathetic route to achieving their true goal,
i.e. widespread legalization of marijuana for all (read recreational)
uses.

Even in this "progressive" era, advocating more liberal drug laws is
unpopular in mainstream society. But if you can connect your cause to
the suffering of innocents, you have a much stronger shot at garnering
support. It's an effective strategy, as we've already seen in the
stem-cell debate.

So, unless we're prepared to decriminalize drug use nationally, states
can't be allowed to create their own drug policies.

What would start out as compassionate use of marijuana for medical
purposes would pave the way for the free flow of drugs across state
borders. Of course, this is already happening. But not with state
sanction. At least, not yet, thank goodness. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake