As a rule, political disputes feature conflicting positions that are obviously or at least arguably rational. There are, however, exceptions. A particularly striking illustration of an exception to the rule is provided by the dispute over medical marijuana laws. Currently, eight states feature laws that allow physicians to prescribe marijuana to patients to relieve pain from conditions ranging from glaucoma to cancer to AIDS. The federal government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, has taken the position that since there is no federal law permitting doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, people who supply or possess marijuana legally under state law for medical purposes should be prosecuted under federal law. This is not a rationally defensible position. [continues 516 words]
As a rule, political disputes feature conflicting positions that are obviously or at least arguably rational. There are, however, exceptions. A particularly striking illustration of an exception to the rule is provided by the dispute over medical marijuana laws. Currently, eight states feature laws that allow physicians to prescribe marijuana to patients to relieve pain from conditions ranging from glaucoma to cancer to AIDS. The federal government in general, and the Bush administration in particular, has taken the position that since there is no federal law permitting doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, people who supply or possess marijuana legally under state laws for medical purposes should be prosecuted under federal law. This is not a rational defensible position. [continues 500 words]
