TURNING BACK THE CLOCK ON MARIJUANA

The debate over medical use of marijuana has been, up until last week,
helpfully dispassionate and generally informed.

That marijuana relieves some symptoms or side effects of certain
difficult ailments (weight loss accompanying AIDS, glaucoma, among
others) seems to be accepted by most medical authorities. Therefore,
the U.S. Supreme Court helped not a bit last week when it decreed that
there was no known medical benefit for the narcotic, and, in effect,
that it should not be considered for any federal programs.

The trouble with the decision was that it immediately brought out the
extremists on both sides.

The people who had held that it was at worst addictive or at best a
"gateway" drug, the use of which can lead to addiction, said, in
effect, "We told you so all along; now let's put people in jail for
smoking pot." Those on the other side, who have been calling for
legalization of marijuana and other narcotics, could now brand their
opponents as know-nothings.

The issue the justices were deciding was the legality of a California
cooperative which bought marijuana in bulk for pharmaceutical purposes
under state law. Since a federal prosecution was involved, the 8-0
ruling applied only to federal law and did not rule out a movement
that has already passed medical marijuana ballot initiatives in eight
states.

But the blanket opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas inserted
the court into the field of medicine, a sorcerer's apprentice move
which will be a long time sorting itself out. Justice Thomas'
statement that the drug "has no currently accepted medical use in
treatment in the United States" was couched in the language of
politics, not of law.

This promises to chill the rational dialogue that was increasingly
centered around future control -- desirable legal restrictions on the
who, what, where, when and why of the drug's sale. Areas were being
opened up where reasonable folk could agree or disagree without many
of the old passions and prejudices . Perhaps that is why the
arch-conservative, politically-oriented jurist made the statement --
so the nation could turn back the clock.

The new Supreme Court, since last autumn's dramatic realignment in the
wake of the disputed Florida election, is far more politicized than it
ever has been, with four moderates on one side opposing five
conservatives on the other. A hot-button issue like medical marijuana
will certainly -- and sadly -- add to the politicization.

In this case, the smoke is the fire, and justice will continue its
drift into oblivion unless one or two of the conservative justices
sense the clear and present danger.