POSTURING, NOT POLICY

The unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court declaring the sale of
marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, illegal, may have been
upsetting to many. But it was not surprising. Federal law simply does
not permit it.

Some states do, including California, which led to the Supreme Court
test. Californians who use the drug for medicinal purposes may not be
breaking that state's law, but they are breaking federal law, which is
insupportable in a practical sense because those who need marijuana
will take their chances with federal prosecution.

That is the worst of it, because laws that are scorned weaken the
political structures when they go unenforced.

In short, the Supreme Court told California, "You cannot do that under
federal law." But California has already told its citizens that they
can, and turning that around, especially for those desperate to
alleviate the pain from their illnesses, will be about as effective as
Prohibition was in the 1920s.

Some say marijuana should be treated like alcohol, available with
similar restrictions, from dealers licensed to sell it. The counter
argument is that marijuana is not at all like alcohol, which is
produced under strict regulations and with necessary safeguards.
Marijuana can be grown in flower pots, back yards or basements.
Legalize it and use will proliferate because there is no way to
regulate its sale, opponents of legalization say.

There may be a third approach, and that might be to legalize the user,
such as in the case of prescription drugs. Marijuana is an available
drug that many find helpful in easing symptoms of serious diseases and
cancer treatment.

Our society is beset with all manner of drug-taking, legal and
illegal, with the latter involving criminal trafficking that brings
its own problems. For too long, politicians have postured on drug laws
rather than address themselves to a real public policy.

While it is tempting to argue for a hard-and-fast rule one way or the
others, the reality is that, both run counter to the medical and
social realities with which we live. (Voters in Ipswich Rep. Brad
Hill's 4th Essex District, including Manchester, indicated
overwhelmingly last November their support for decriminalizing
marijuana use, and the issue nearly resulted on a wholesale revision
of the drug and criminal forfeiture laws on a statewide basis.)

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decision was clear and unequivocal in
finding that marijuana use in not permitted under existing federal
statues. What this speaks to is not so much California's attempt to
resolve a complex issue, but the utter failure of our nation's
lawmakers to sort out the acceptable from the unacceptable.

Congress simply cannot be permitted to walk away from this problem as
it has for so long. It is federal law that the court upheld, and
therefore the responsibility of Congress and the president to deal
with any changes that make the law more flexible and realistic.