TIME TO CLEAR THE HAZE: JUSTICES RULE AGAINST MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt medical marijuana advocates a devastating
setback Monday by ruling that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal
provides no exceptions for ill patients.

The court's 8-0 vote (Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate because
his brother, a federal judge, had initially presided over the case)
indicates that justices had little choice. The Federal Controlled
Substances Act unequivocally states that marijuana has "no currently
accepted medical use" whatsover. Not "conditional use." Not "potential use
in the future." None.

Given the unswerving clarity of the statutory language, justices had no
room to maneuver. But Congress does, and it should now move quickly to
change this needlessly restrictive federal law to make the drug available
to relieve the suffering of victims of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and
other debilitating diseases.

The ruling came in a California case involving the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative, which contended that the act might be read to allow use of
drugs that are medically necessary for some people. This shaky defense
somehow had convinced the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco, but the Supreme Court properly based its ruling on the narrow,
specific wording of the statute.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the federal law is based on a correct
assessment of the medical value of marijuana. While their claims remain
unconfirmed by scientific studies, many people suffering from AIDS, cancer,
multiple sclerosis and other illnesses insist that the drug is uniquely
successful in relieving pain and other symptoms.

So far, their compelling testimony has convinced voters in eight states,
including Oregon and Washington, to approve ballot initiatives allowing the
use of medical marijuana, despite the clear conflict with federal law. (In
a ninth state, Hawaii, the Legislature passed a similar law and the
governor signed it last year, and several more states are considering
medical marijuana laws.) Monday's ruling will not strike down these state
laws, but it leaves marijuana distributors, such as the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers' Cooperative, open to prosecution.

Oregon's law, which specifically bars the sale of marijuana and instead
allows registered patients to obtain permits to grow their own supplies,
may not be directly affected. But it still fundamentally conflicts with the
federal government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, one
for which there is no approved medical use.

Congress can - and should - clear away this legal haze by changing the
Controlled Substances Act to make marijuana a Schedule 2 drug. Under this
classification, marijuana would still be considered illegal but would be
recognized as having potential medical uses. Oregon and other states could
decide for themselves whether to allow marijuana to be used for medical
purposes, and how distribution of the drug should be controlled.

Voters in states representing more than one-fifth of the nation's
population have heeded the plea of suffering patients who say marijuana
helps them deal with their pain.

In the wake of Monday's ruling, Congress should protect the rights of
states to act compassionately - and sensibly - by giving patients access to
a drug they say they need.