SMOKE SCREEN

High Court Considers Medicinal Marijuana

Advocates of marijuana legalization were chastened back in September when
the U.S. Supreme Court barred a cannabis "buyers club" in Oakland from
distributing marijuana.

Nevertheless, they took solace in the fact that the high court did not go
so far at the time as to strike down Proposition 215, the California ballot
measure approved by voters in 1996, which authorized possession and use of
marijuana use for "medicinal" purposes.

The justices decided this week to resolve, once and for all, whether
Proposition 215 and similar medical-marijuana laws in eight other states --
Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado --
pass constitutional muster.

At issue is whether these recently enacted state laws allowing "medicinal"
marijuana supersede the long-standing federal Controlled Substances Act,
which includes marijuana among the drugs whose manufacture and distribution
are illegal.

It is no secret that the crusade to enact "medicinal" marijuana in
California and other states is driven by advocates of drug legalization,
including such deep-pocket supporters as George Soros, the billionaire
financier.

If they can persuade voters to approve marijuana use for putative medicinal
purposes, they reason, they can eventually get those same voters to approve
marijuana for non-medicinal use. And so on, until they succeed in
legalizing drug use altogether.

The case now before the U.S. Supreme Court dates to 1998, when the Justice
Department secured an injunction from a federal district court in San
Francisco barring the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other
similar "medicinal" marijuana clubs from distributing the narcotic.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district
court, declaring that medical necessity could be a defense to the charge of
distributing drugs in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

Of course, if the 9th Circuit's ruling stands, it would undermine the rule
of law. For the appellate court has decided, capriciously so, that federal
law may be disregarded under certain circumstances -- like "medical necessity."

Indeed, it stands to reason that, if federal drug laws can be ignored under
certain circumstances, then all manner of federal laws might be similarly
ignored -- including tax laws, gun laws, environmental laws, civil rights
laws, etc.

If exceptions are to be made to the federal Controlled Substances Act, if
the possession and use of marijuana is to be legalized for ostensible
medicinal purposes, then it is up to Congress to amend the law.

Proposition 215 and the other similar state laws represent an attempt by
marijuana legalization advocates to do an end run around Congress, to
subvert federal drug law. It is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court
will strike down these state laws as unconstitutional.