OK MEDICAL MARIJUANA

States should be allowed to permit doctors to prescribe marijuana for
medical purposes if they determine that it is effective for their patients.
Arguments that this undermines drug enforcement is mired in the "reefer
madness" attitude of decades ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether marijuana can be
provided to patients out of "medical necessity" even though federal law
makes its distribution a crime. Justice Department lawyers will argue that
this "threatens the government's ability to enforce the federal drug laws."

Nine states have medical-marijuana laws in place or approved by voters.
These states have said, essentially, that doctors should make decisions
about medical treatment, not federal drug agents.

Those who oppose the use of marijuana for medical reasons fear that this is
a foot in the door for de facto legalization. But there is no reason to
believe that the use of marijuana could not be as carefully controlled as
that of narcotics such as morphine, which is routinely prescribed.

Morphine, like marijuana, has been used for recreational purposes. Does that
mean it should be off limits for use in relieving pain of seriously ill
patients? Of course not.

Marijuana carries a great deal of sociological baggage. It is difficult for
many to view the much-abused "weed" as a potentially beneficial palliative
for cancer and HIV-positive patients.

But the issue needs to be decided outside the shadow of law enforcement. Let
medical experts determine whether marijuana has valid medical uses and, if
so, let states find a way to dispense it legally to those who can benefit
from it.