WHAT'S SO AWFUL ABOUT POT FOR THE GRAVELY ILL?

Does it really make sense for the federal government to prosecute
terminally ill people if they smoke marijuana to ease their pain?

Apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court believes so. The court handed down an
8-0 decision Monday that throws out a "medical necessity" exception to the
prohibition on the distribution of marijuana.

The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, overturned an opinion by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that essentially allowed an
Oakland marijuana cooperative to raise the medical-necessity defense when
the government tried to close the group.

The Supreme Court's decision means that marijuana "has no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

Tell that to Jacki Rickert of Mondovi, who depends on marijuana to ward off
the effects of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and reflexive sympathetic dystrophy.
The afflictions keep Rickert in pain and affect her ability to eat.

Rickert got the permission of her doctor to use marijuana after trying
other forms of pain killers, including the synthetic form of marijuana. The
doctor looked into the marijuana therapy for three years and determined it
was the safest of any possible medication, Rickert told a state Assembly
committee earlier this year.

However, Rickert never was able to legally obtain the marijuana, although
she had a doctor's prescription for it.

Rickert was angry after learning of the Supreme Court's decision. "It was
definitely a huge shock to hear that that many people on the court of the
land I love so much could just kick patients to the curb, so to speak,"
Rickert told the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.

"I'm just so angry. I'm almost shaking. I feel I've had my wheelchair
kicked out from under me."

While the Supreme Court's decision definitely was a setback for those who
support the medicinal use of marijuana, the door still is open.

For example, the decision did not overturn the laws in nine states that
allow marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes. These laws were enacted
either through ballot initiative or the legislative process.

The decision still leaves in question whether individual patients can raise
the medical-necessity defense if caught with the drug. That's because the
case the Supreme Court decided involved a mass distributor, the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative.

There also is the question of whether state governments could get around
the decision by going into the marijuana distribution business. The states
of Nevada and Maine are considering such a system.

Because most marijuana prosecutions are handled by states, those who
support marijuana therapy don't believe that campaigns to widen its use
will be slowed by the decision.

However, the Supreme Court's decision will not help sick patients who
believe they need marijuana to be comfortable obtain their supplies.

And the decision raises the possibility of the federal government coming
down hard on a patient who is dying of AIDS or cancer, with marijuana being
their only means of feeling a little bit better.

It sees like the federal government should have more important things to
worry about.