LET SUFFERERS INHALE

The Supreme Court can inject some needed compassion into a contentious case
from California involving the medical use of marijuana.

Californians voted in 1996 to legalize marijuana for medical use. Voters in
eight other states have adopted similar policies allowing seriously ill
patients, with a doctor's recommendation, to possess and use the drug to
relieve pain and nausea. The Oakland Buyers' Cooperative, which the city of
Oakland started, provides marijuana for medical purposes. So do dozens of
similar cooperatives.

The Clinton administration's Office of Drug Control Policy calls these
initiatives backdoor routes to legalizing marijuana. Three years ago, the
government asked a federal court to close down the Oakland cooperative. U.S.
District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the injunction. The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, however, said Judge Breyer should have modified
the injunction to consider "medical necessity."

Judge Breyer then issued a new order, saying the cooperative could supply
marijuana to people whose doctors say they need it. The government asked for
a stay of the ruling. The Supreme Court granted it and this week agreed to
hear the case.

The government has tried regularly to keep people from using marijuana for
medical needs. In 1997, drug czar Barry McCaffrey told doctors they could
lose their license to prescribe all drugs if they prescribed marijuana. The
respected New England Journal of Medicine called that "foolish" and
suggested making marijuana a Schedule 2 drug like morphine, also potentially
addictive but medically useful. Doctors then could prescribe it without
fear.

The administration wouldn't budge but did agree to spend $1 million to study
the drug's medical potential. The research showed that cannabinoids, the
active ingredients in marijuana, did seem to be useful in treating pain,
nausea and the severe weight loss that comes with AIDS. National Institute
of Medicine experts found no evidence that giving the drug to seriously ill
people would increase casual use. But since smoking can lead to lung cancer,
they recommended developing inhalers and other methods of delivering the
drug.

The Supreme Court will decide whether medical necessity justifies
distributing marijuana in violation of federal law. The answer should be
yes. Until doctors have better ways to alleviate severe suffering, they
should be able to prescribe marijuana and people should be able to buy it.