A PERFECT REMEDY FOR STATES' RIGHTS, FEDERAL LAW

Some have described it as a battle between states' rights and federal law,
and that very well may be the case.

However, when the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue of allowing
marijuana for medical use, the primary concern should be the benefits of
the ill individual and the proper enforcement of existing laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been described as an advocate of states' rights
and has expanded the rights of states in various rulings.

The use of medical marijuana, which is legal in nine states, will
ultimately fall into this descriptive category by legal pundits.

But this ongoing debate of states' rights vs. Uncle Sam is just scratching
the surface of the debate and should not be an indicator of whether medical
marijuana is a necessity or a violation of law.

In certain cases, the use of medical marijuana could lessen the pain of
individuals battling cancer or similar debilitating diseases.

Depriving such individuals of relief due to a federal law would seem to
contrast with medical responsibility.

This is where states should recognize existing laws and also enforce laws
that would prohibit the distribution of medical marijuana with the
exception of the aforementioned conditions.

Doctors, as well as state officials, should determine the necessity of
medical marijuana on an individual basis, which would respect federal law
and also respect the needs of ill individuals with little or no other
recourse for relief.

The U.S. Supreme Court can adopt a middle road that would maintain states'
rights while also upholding the authority of the federal government.