UP IN SMOKE

In the wake of last week's unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision that
marijuana cannot legally be used for medical purposes, it may be tempting
to point an accusing finger at the court.

But the 8-0 decision (Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself) indicates
just how clear the matter is, according to current law. The ruling does not
overturn laws approved by compassionate voters in eight states, including
Colorado, which allow certain seriously ill patients to use marijuana to
relieve their symptoms. Rather, it simply affirms that the drug's current
listing on Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, which means,
according to the definition established by Congress, that it has no
"currently accepted medical use."

Sure, some might paste the justices - especially the five "conservatives"
inclined to lean toward states' rights, the 2000 presidential election to
the contrary - for so bluntly endorsing federal power. Others might hammer
them for pretending medical expertise where there is none. But on the
whole, the judges made a sound legal decision.

In fact, the decision tosses the question right back where it belongs, into
the lap of Congress. But there, alas, we're all but certain of its fate.

Terrified of being tabbed "soft on drugs" in the next election (as far in
the future as far too many elected officials can see, any more), lawmakers
simply won't be brave enough to reclassify pot. We don't expect to see the
kind of upsurge in common sense and compassion that would allow them to
admit the obvious: Marijuana, while not a plate of alfalfa sprouts, clearly
is not as harmful as other Schedule I drugs such as cocaine, heroin and
methamphetamine.

Despite the law's claims of certainty, the question of marijuana's medical
efficacy is far from settled. Patients living with AIDS have found that it
stimulates appetite, reducing dangerous weight loss; it can reduce the
nausea experienced by chemotherapy patients; and some patients have found
it effective in relieving the symptoms of everything from glaucoma to epilepsy.

Given the evidence - much anecdotal, but some established in careful
studies - it seems particularly cruel to tell patients they should have no
expectation of protection from the law if they seek to relieve their
symptoms with marijuana. Ironically, this could mean that the most
desperate patients will turn to illicit sources of the drug. And given the
court's narrow ruling, federal law likely will supersede all state laws,
which means that patients who grow even a tiny amount of marijuana for
personal medical use could find cops banging down their doors.

It's certainly true that one subgroup of the medical marijuana lobby is
simply looking to leverage an ultimate legalization of the drug for all
uses. But as sensible people recognize, nothing about medical marijuana
access requires us to loosen laws further.

But, now that we think of it, why come down so hard on marijuana? After
all, neither alcohol nor tobacco, which contribute to the deaths of many
thousands of Americans every year, has any "currently accepted medical
use," either. And unlike marijuana, those two drugs are powerfully addictive.

That's not so much an argument for legalization of pot as an illustration
of the egregious hypocrisy of this nation's drug laws. We don't expect
Congress to develop any common sense about marijuana in the near future,
but maybe some day it will realize that it easily can change the law to
help suffering people without making it easier for kids to get stoned.