MEDICAL MARIJUANA A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

IN A rare 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared this week
that there is no "medical necessity" exception to the federal law
that prohibits distribution or use of marijuana. The ruling came in a
case involving the so-called Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative.

In their ruling, the justices concluded that Proposition 215,
approved by California voters in 1996 for medical marijuana use, does
not supersede the federal Controlled Substances Act, which lists
marijuana among the drugs whose production and distribution are
illegal.

The Justice Department's case against the Oakland marijuana buyers'
club dates to 1998, when it obtained an injunction from a federal
district court in San Francisco barring the Bay Area club and other
similar "medicinal" marijuana clubs from distributing the narcotic.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
overruled the lower court, ruling that medical necessity could be a
defense to the charge of distributing marijuana in seemingly obvious
violation of federal drug law.

Enter the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the 9th Circuit's ruling
last August, effectively shutting down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative while the justices pondered the case.

PROPONENTS OF "medicinal" marijuana take some solace in the fact that
the high court did not unequivocally declare Proposition 215 and
similar state laws unconstitutional. They see some wiggle room in the
court's ruling. The best way to resolve the "medical" marijuana issue
is on Capitol Hill. If the production and distribution of marijuana
are to be legalized for "medicinal" use, then it is up Congress to
amend the federal law.

As it is now, there is no hard scientific evidence that proves the
efficacy of medical marijuana. Moreover, there are legal alternatives
to marijuana, including a synthetic form of the active ingredient in
cannabis, that might provide pain relief for suffering patients.

The reasonable-minded on both sides of the medical marijuana debate
agree that the issue merits thorough scientific study. And that the
matter of whether Congress amends the Controlled Substances Act to
allow a medical necessity exception ought to be based on science.