ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Ever since voters in California and Arizona approved measures to
legalize medical marijuana, in 1996, the federal government has
scrambled to counter any idea that a controlled substance could be
legally permissible and beneficial.

Drug czar Barry McCaffrey responded (unsuccessfully) by trying to
strip pot-dispensing doctors of their prescription-writing
privileges. The government also implemented a five-year, $2 billion
(half-public, half-private) federal campaign to convince the public
that such drugs are bad in all circumstances. The result: Voters in
Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and
Colorado all joined the prescription-pot party.

But the government still isn't giving up. Last month, the Clinton
administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the federal law
criminalizing distribution and possession of marijuana to doctors
prescribing the drug to patients in California. The court has agreed
to hear the case. We hope it will let the states and their voters
decide whether they want medical marijuana.

Granted, marijuana can have negative health effects. It is a known
toxin, and extended use can endanger the lungs, the reproductive
system and the immune system. These are among the reasons it was
declared illegal in 1937. But 10 raw potatoes or a pound of nutmeg
can be toxic, too. So far as we know, no one has died of a marijuana
overdose, and many more potent and dangerous drugs, including
alcohol, are legal.

One legally prescribed drug is Marinol, which contains synthetic THC.
(THC is the active ingredient in marijuana.) Marinol is prescribed to
quell nausea and stimulate hunger, just as is marijuana.

Naturally, the real stuff is more effective. So why is the government
so opposed to allowing medical marijuana? It opposes it although
study after study and testimonial after testimonial have proved its
effectiveness in relieving pain. And it fights it despite the clear
intent of the voters in eight states, despite the fact that in
several polls at least two-thirds of the public supports medical
marijuana, and despite the fact that a less-effective ersatz version
is legal.

Perhaps the government's problem is pride. Considering the effort and
costs expended on the increasingly ridiculous war on drugs, the
government can't afford to be wrong. Marijuana has to be bad! And the
more than 10 million marijuana users arrested since 1968? Could the
government have made a mistake? Could marijuana actually have
beneficial effects? No! Never!

This is not a case of voters not knowing what is good for them. The
growing evidence clearly supports the beneficial effects of marijuana
in alleviating suffering. The will of the people seems clear. And any
pretense that medical marijuana undermines the war on drugs is
laughable, considering that the number of high school seniors
reporting that they have used marijuana has risen from 33 percent in
1992 to 50 percent in 1999, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Agency.

There are few reasons to ban medical marijuana. Perhaps the only
satisfactory explanation is that federal policymakers have spent too
much time, er, researching the topic.