THE SUPREME COURT RULES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Except in the matter of late-term abortions, most members of Congress
don't often presume to practice medicine. But this week the Supreme
Court ruled 8-0 that they may do so if they please. The court
determined that a congressional decision, made back during the Nixon
administration, prohibits anyone from possessing or distributing
marijuana, even if the drug is intended to relieve the terrible pain
and nausea associated with treatment for cancer and AIDS.

It's not likely that Congress intended to make life miserable for
seriously ill people when it voted to place marijuana on the list of
federally controlled substances back in 1970. There was no evidence
at that time that the drug was anything but hallucinogenic. In the
intervening years, however, many doctors, researchers and medical
associations have determined that something in marijuana provides
palliative relief for certain agonizing therapies. That's why eight
states have passed laws that exempt people from prosecution for
obtaining marijuana for the seriously ill.

Monday's ruling didn't invalidate those laws, but it will allow the
federal government to prosecute anyone who gives marijuana to the
sick and the dying. If the government feels particularly vicious, it
might even prosecute the patients themselves. President Bush's
nominee for drug czar has suggested taking prescription privileges
away from doctors who recommend marijuana for their patients. Way to
go.

The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is a telling
perversion of what conservatives like to call "strict
constructionism," illustrating the high court's recent determination
to twist reason and the Constitution so they conform to the justices'
personal and political convictions. One might imagine that strict
constructionists would defer to the conservative principle of state's
rights in a case such as this, or find as it has in several recent
cases that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority. But
this is about the devil's weed, so federal law had to prevail.

Follow Thomas's reasoning. The fact that Congress prohibited
marijuana use in 1970, he wrote, "reflects a determination that
marijuana has no medical benefits. Indeed, for the purposes of the
Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has no currently accepted
medical use at all." To drive home his brutal point, Thomas added in
a footnote: "The very point of our holding is that there is no
medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue even when
the patient is seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for
relief."

In other words, anyone bent double with intractable pain should take
two aspirin -- and don't call Justice Thomas in the morning.

Thomas's reasoning was so extreme that only the court's conservative
wing joined in it. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself, because
his brother had been involved in the case as a federal judge.
Although Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader
Ginsburg went along with the outcome with regard to the widespread
distribution of the drug, they expressed uncertainty as to whether
seriously ill patients should be prevented from using it on their own
when "there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or
extraordinary suffering."

No one is certain what effect this ruling will have, except that it
will unnecessarily complicate the lives of people who are deathly
ill. But even for those who believe the ruling is correct on legal
grounds, a simple solution is possible. If, as the court says,
Congress is to be the source of all wisdom about medical matters in
this country, then Congress could amend its 1970 decision to allow
the domestic cultivation and distribution of marijuana to seriously
ill patients under strict medical control. In the weeks to come, we
will see if anyone in Washington has the courage and compassion to
propose that reasonable remedy.