MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THE LAW

Many Americans with serious illnesses, including cancer and AIDS, have been
lucky enough to find a drug that can greatly ease their symptoms. But they
also suffer some bad luck: It's marijuana.

For a long time, people needing to use pot as medicine have had to contend
with the inconvenient fact that the drug is illegal. Many states have
elected to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis. But the federal
government has not. And when Californians approved a medical marijuana
initiative, the U.S. Department of Justice refused to go along. It went to
court to close down "cannabis dispensaries" set up to distribute pot to
patients whose doctors recommended it.

Supporters of medical marijuana took heart when a federal appeals court
ruled that federal law must be interpreted to allow a "medical necessity"
exception for people with serious ailments that may respond only to
cannabis. But Monday, the Supreme Court gave its response, which boiled
down to: "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" In an opinion written by
Clarence Thomas, the court said that since Congress didn't explicitly
create such an exception, the courts must reject any medical defense.

The justices were unanimous (except for Stephen Breyer, who recused
himself), and when that happens, they usually are on solid legal ground.
Here, they reached the right conclusion: Courts should not be in the
business of revising laws merely because their enforcement may have
regrettable consequences. Congress, acting as the agent of the American
people, is perfectly capable of considering the evidence on the medical
value of marijuana and deciding whether it warrants special treatment.

In fact, Congress has done exactly that and chosen not to permit
therapeutic use of the drug. That this decision is unwise doesn't mean that
our elected legislators didn't have every right to make it.

Unwise, though, is an understatement. One of the ailments for which
marijuana has been used is AIDS wasting syndrome, a severe loss of appetite
that causes emaciation. A 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences concluded that marijuana has proved its
effectiveness in treating this condition, as well as the nausea that often
goes with cancer chemotherapy. The report found no evidence that the
medical use of pot would contribute to drug abuse. Given all this, denying
marijuana to desperately ill people is pointlessly cruel.

But anyone who favors a more humane approach will have to hope that popular
sentiment will force a change in federal law. Voters in seven states, from
Arizona to Maine, have voted to allow cannabis therapy, suggesting that the
public can endorse marijuana for medical use without legalizing it for
recreational use. It's time Congress did the same.

Many Americans with serious illnesses, including cancer and AIDS, have been
lucky enough to find a drug that can greatly ease their symptoms. But they
also suffer some bad luck: It's marijuana.

For a long time, people needing to use pot as medicine have had to contend
with the inconvenient fact that the drug is illegal. Many states have
elected to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis. But the federal
government has not. And when Californians approved a medical marijuana
initiative, the U.S. Department of Justice refused to go along. It went to
court to close down "cannabis dispensaries" set up to distribute pot to
patients whose doctors recommended it.

Supporters of medical marijuana took heart when a federal appeals court
ruled that federal law must be interpreted to allow a "medical necessity"
exception for people with serious ailments that may respond only to
cannabis. But Monday, the Supreme Court gave its response, which boiled
down to: "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" In an opinion written by
Clarence Thomas, the court said that since Congress didn't explicitly
create such an exception, the courts must reject any medical defense.

The justices were unanimous (except for Stephen Breyer, who recused
himself), and when that happens, they usually are on solid legal ground.
Here, they reached the right conclusion: Courts should not be in the
business of revising laws merely because their enforcement may have
regrettable consequences. Congress, acting as the agent of the American
people, is perfectly capable of considering the evidence on the medical
value of marijuana and deciding whether it warrants special treatment.

In fact, Congress has done exactly that and chosen not to permit
therapeutic use of the drug. That this decision is unwise doesn't mean that
our elected legislators didn't have every right to make it.

Unwise, though, is an understatement. One of the ailments for which
marijuana has been used is AIDS wasting syndrome, a severe loss of appetite
that causes emaciation. A 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine of the
National Academy of Sciences concluded that marijuana has proved its
effectiveness in treating this condition, as well as the nausea that often
goes with cancer chemotherapy. The report found no evidence that the
medical use of pot would contribute to drug abuse. Given all this, denying
marijuana to desperately ill people is pointlessly cruel.

But anyone who favors a more humane approach will have to hope that popular
sentiment will force a change in federal law. Voters in seven states, from
Arizona to Maine, have voted to allow cannabis therapy, suggesting that the
public can endorse marijuana for medical use without legalizing it for
recreational use. It's time Congress did the same.