COMPASSION AND CANNABIS

It may have made good legal sense, but the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
this week prohibiting the distribution of so-called medical marijuana
should not necessarily be the final word on the issue.

Putting aside all the breast-beating and tub-thumping that have
surrounded the issue, the high court's decision underscores the
nation's desperate need for consistent and sensible public policy
regarding controlled substances that may have valid medicinal uses.

In this sense, the court has challenged government at all levels --
from our local city councils right up to the U.S. Congress -- to shape
a rational body of law that discourages drug abuse without penalizing
the innocent. In particular, lawmakers need to keep in mind the
thousands of cancer and AIDS patients for whom marijuana provides the
only reliable relief for the paralyzing nausea that accompanies
chemotherapy and other treatments -- not to mention countless others
who depend on pot to ameliorate the debilitating effects of diseases
ranging from epilepsy to glaucoma to multiple sclerosis.

The court's ruling came in response to a federal challenge of
Proposition 215, a relatively modest 1996 California ballot measure
aimed at legalizing the medical use of marijuana. Although Prop. 215
limited this use to seriously or terminally ill patients with the
approval of a licensed physician, the feds nonetheless decided to make
an example of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, one of 20 or
so medical marijuana distribution centers that sprung up across the
state after California voters overwhelmingly approved the idea.

As the feds saw it, referendum or no, outfits like the Oakland
cooperative were violating the law -- in particular, a 1970 federal
statute that classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug with no
medicinal value. Local officials saw it differently, arguing that
"medical necessity" entitled them to ignore federal law.

Now that the Supreme Court has decided that medical necessity "is not
a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana," virtually all
of these programs -- including Santa Barbara's own Compassionate
Cannabis Center -- could be liable to prosecution. But that doesn't
mean they are doomed.

The fact is, despite the 8-0 vote, the high court's ruling hardly
amounted to a blanket condemnation of medical marijuana. For one
thing, while the justices made it clear that there is currently no
such thing as a "medical necessity" exception to the federal ban on
marijuana distribution, they left the door open for Congress to create
one.

For another, the decision dealt with distribution by private marijuana
clubs. It did not prohibit local governments from setting up their own
systems to distribute marijuana for specified medical purposes. Nevada
and Maine are currently considering doing just that.

Moreover, while the justices agreed unanimously that current law
allows no exceptions to the federal ban on distribution, they
disagreed among themselves about whether medical necessity might
justify the use of marijuana by properly qualified patients.

So where does this all leave us?

Very simply, with a real opportunity to bring some badly needed sanity
to what so far has been a largely hysterical war on drugs. Santa
Barbara officials could do their part by resurrecting a proposed city
ordinance that would set out specific procedures and guidelines to
ensure that medical marijuana is distributed only to those with a
genuine medical need.

First introduced in the City Council last September, the measure had
been sidelined by the unwillingness of some council members to take
action while the Supreme Court was considering the Oakland case. Now
that the court has rendered its decision, council members should cease
their dithering and adopt the ordinance. Further delay will only
result in additional hardship for hundreds of Santa Barbara residents
who, as one of them put it, are "in a horrendous amount of pain ...
and (are) just asking for a little compassion."

In doing so, the council would be sending an unmistakable signal to
federal authorities and laying out a road map other local governments
could follow. This is an important issue. It would be gratifying to
see Santa Barbara blaze the trail.