BITTER MEDICINE

The Supreme Court Couldn't Rewrite The Law On Medical Marijuana, So
Congress Should

Don't blame the Supreme Court's five-member conservative majority for
deciding that federal law forbids the distribution of marijuana even when a
state allows its use in cases of medical necessity. All eight justices who
heard the case (Stephen Breyer took a pass because his kid brother was the
trial judge) came to the same conclusion: When Congress passed the
Controlled Substances Act, it made no exception for the medical use of
marijuana.

As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion, the courts are
supposed to interpret the federal criminal code; they're "not at liberty to
rewrite it." But Congress is at liberty to rewrite, of course, and that's
what it should do: Amend the law to let a patient use marijuana when a
doctor determines it's medically necessary. Nine states have already done
this-all but one of them by referendum rather than legislative act. Those
voters can't all be drug-crazed hippies bent on legalizing pot for the masses.

Despite a dearth of rigorous clinical trials, there's a wealth of anecdotal
evidence that marijuana can be effective in treating cancer patients'
nausea during chemotherapy as well as the loss of appetite that afflicts
patients in the advanced stages of AIDS. The National Academy of Sciences'
Institute of Medicine reached this conclusion two years ago. Does anyone
really think Congress is in a better position to make judgments like this
than doctors and patients? Even if Congress doesn't act, the Supreme Court
hasn't necessarily handed down its last word on the subject. Medicinal
marijuana proponents say they're prepared to argue in court that the law
doesn't prevent sick people from growing plants for their own medical use,
and Maine and Nevada have actually been considering state-run distribution
systems. Let's see how the high court's states'-rights conservatives handle
that one.

The truth is that mindlessly "tough" drug laws don't prevent recreational
users from obtaining marijuana, but they do make criminals of desperately
ill people who may have no other way to relieve their suffering. If
"compassionate conservatism" means anything at all, it ought to take these
people's needs into account. How about it, Congress?