HIGH COURT RULING ADDS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CONFUSION

This week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana appears to leave
medical users deeper in legal limbo than they were before.

But it may discourage some growers who were apparently abusing the
loosely-written Proposition 215.

The court ruled that federal law prohibits distribution of marijuana, even
for medical purposes.

The ruling does not, however, deal directly with simple possession of
medical marijuana in California and the other eight states where its use is
legally permitted.

That seems to leave open the possibility that state-authorized medical
users may still grow plants for their own personal use.

As marijuana can be raised at home under artificial plant lights, this may
be a practical temporary solution -- if hardly satisfactory as a permanent
answer.

Neither federal nor state officers are likely to arrest, nor district
attorneys to prosecute, an invalid for possession of small amounts of
medical marijuana.

They have bigger public safety problems to deal with.

Most of the legal controversy arising from Prop 215 involves groups and
individuals that grow and distribute large amounts, ostensibly as
"medicine" for persons who can't raise their own. While some of these are
responsible organizations, others are thinly disguised commercial
operations, allowing professional pot dealers to make sales under a legal ruse.

The high court ruling declares all such enterprises illegal, and may
discourage growers who would rather not face a federal rap. It will surely
affect the lawsuit filed against Humboldt County Sheriff Dennis Lewis, who
has been charged with contempt of Superior Court for refusing to return
confiscated marijuana.

In the long run, the only answer is to write better laws. Prop 215, having
been passed as a ballot initiative, is far more loosely worded than normal
legislation. That's why it's been so seriously open to abuse.

Both state and federal codes should be amended to allow medical use of
marijuana under the same strict standards as other controlled drugs. That
means regulated doses, properly prescribed by physicians and distributed
through clinics and pharmacies.

A legitimate objection to this is that it would place a herbal cure that
anyone can grow cheaply at home in the hands of pharmaceutical corporations
that routinely mark their products from 1,500 to 3,000 percent above the
cost of manufacture. There must be a way to avoid this, such as mandating
generic prescriptions.

Cocaine, amphetamines, opiates such as morphine and codeine and many other
dangerous drugs are used medically with proper safeguards. There is no
reason why cannabis should not -- compared to these, or even to alcohol, it
is relatively innocuous.

Unfortunately, it's no easier to conduct a calm and rational public debate
about marijuana than it is about sex, religion or capital punishment. Too
many politicians have been grandstanding for too long -- and who wants to
be tagged as "soft on drugs?"

The voters of California, and of most states where the issue has been
placed on the ballot, have spoken clearly.

They do not want marijuana legalized for recreational use (measures to do
so have always failed) but they do want it -- and any other drug that can
relieve human suffering -- available to those who might genuinely benefit
from it.

That really shouldn't be an insurmountable legal problem, given the
political will to solve it.