WAITING FOR RELIEF

It has been 2 1/2 years since Maine voters passed a citizen-initiated
medical marijuana referendum. The argument in favor was strong --
compassion demands that people suffering from pain and nausea associated
with treatments for such diseases as cancer, AIDS and glaucoma be allowed
to use a drug that has been found to provide some relief. The argument
against also was strong -- the law requires that medicines prescribed and
sold must first be found safe and effective in the laboratory, not merely
popular in the voting booth.

The argument not made is the one that continues to win -- nothing the
voters and legislators of this state or any other state can do will matter
as long as the federal government refuses to budge from its long-held
position that, of all the drugs that have the potential both to help the
sick and to be abused, marijuana is one that will remain forbidden. Since
California led the way in 1996, eight states have passed medical marijuana
laws but the threat of federal retribution against physicians, patients and
the states themselves is as strong as ever.

Signs of reefer madness were evident in Washington as recently as late
March. That's when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the federal case
against the Oakland Cannabis Cooperative, one of California's medical
marijuana distribution outlets.

Although a lower federal court has ruled that states should be able to
determine when medical necessity outweighs prohibition, federal law
enforcement continues to maintain that no amount of pain and suffering
should trump the possibility that somewhere someone might just be getting
high. A decision is expected within weeks and it will be interesting to see
how the high court rules, given its selective and increasingly
unpredictable approach to states' rights issues.

At the same time, a congressional panel held a hearing on medical
marijuana. How the House Government Reform Committee's criminal justice
subcommittee will rule is not so much in doubt -- Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind.,
called a leading medical marijuana spokesman an "advocate for an evil
position" and ranking member Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga, called medical marijuana
supporters "despicable," without one other member raising a word of protest.

Since this subcommittee's recommendation will be crucial in determining
whether the ban on possessing marijuana will be eased enough to allow the
necessary research to understand the drug's medicinal value and perhaps to
eventually develop nonsmoking delivery systems, the outlook is not good.

Which leaves Maine lawmakers in the unenviable position of having to
implement a law mandated by their constituents in direct opposition to
federal law and policy -- and to do so under a new administration that has
given indications it embraces the Souder/Barr viewpoint.

Members of the Maine Legislature's Health and Human Services and Criminal
Justice committees did as well as can be expected in this difficult
situation by endorsing a bill, LD 611, to establish a state-sanctioned
marijuana growing and distribution system -- to expect the sick and dying
to buy marijuana from street dealers is simply cruel. The full House and
Senate likewise have a humanitarian obligation to pass this bill and Gov.
King, who has stated his opposition to medical marijuana, should sign it.

It would be far better, of course, if marijuana could be tested for
efficacy and dosage as are other drugs, including opiates, and if
physicians could write prescriptions without fear of federal charges. But
for now all Maine and the other states can do is to act with compassion and
rationality and to hope that the federal government soon does the same.