AMERICA'S LAST DANCE WITH MARY JANE?

The Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's
Cooperative, setting a national precedent against the medicinal
distribution of marijuana. In its unanimous decision, the high court went
against the American grain. Public opinion has shifted dramatically to the
left of the "just say no" era because of the growing volume of
anti-war-on-drugs rhetoric. The medical community has embraced the use of
the drug since 1996, when California became the first state to legalize the
medicinal use of marijuana.

But Clarence Thomas, when defending the court's opinion, said the drug had
"no accepted medical use at all." It would be interesting to see Thomas
attempt to explain that opinion to a dying cancer patient or someone
suffering from AIDS. Marijuana has been the only relief for many suffering
from these afflictions. Now, it will be much more difficult to alleviate
the pain.

The Supreme Court ruled on very narrow grounds -- the Oakland Cannabis
Buyer's Cooperative had to prove that marijuana had a definite medical
benefit. This is a difficult feat because the government will not dole out
enough of the drug for significant tests to be conducted. Could this action
be politically motivated?

The government doesn't want tests done on marijuana because the results
could lead to a wider acceptance -- possibly even a shift of public opinion
against the prohibition of the drug. If marijuana is legalized, a large
chunk of a multi-billion dollar government industry is erased and thousands
of DEA and FBI agents are out of work. The prohibition of the medicinal use
of marijuana has as much to do with the loss of government jobs as it does
with the treatment of dying patients.

Barry McCaffrey, the 'Drug Czar' of the Clinton Administration, commented
on the ruling: He likened smoking marijuana to drinking a couple of glasses
of vodka. Why is it that the people in charge of America's drug policy know
nothing about the drugs they preside over? If vodka and marijuana provided
equal relief for cancer patients, it is doubtful they would go through the
trouble of obtaining marijuana. It is doubtful that so many doctors would
endorse the medicinal use of marijuana.

If America is a representative democracy, why are Congress and the Supreme
Court so unrepresentative of the will of the people? What will it take for
people inflicted with cancer and AIDS to have a voice in this country? Does
Congress have to oust a couple of relics that still believe in the war on
drugs and replace their seats with those in need of medicinal marijuana?

Until that happens, it looks like cancer patients will be growing their own
- -- hopefully the DEA doesn't bust down their doors and push their
wheelchairs directly into federal work camps.