THE SUPREME COURT VS. COMPASSION

California Is Making The Moral, Common-sense Argument On Medical Marijuana,
But Government Is Blinded By The Drug War

THIS MORNING the U.S. Supreme Court steps into the hot debate over the
medical use of marijuana. We're pessimistic about how the justices will
greet California's compassionate efforts to provide the drug to people
suffering from cancer and AIDS.

California goes into the oral arguments standing on the high moral ground.
But the federal government, which sets the nation's drug policy, appears to
have much law on its side.

The federal Controlled Substances Act classifies and regulates substances
from heroin to morphine. While marijuana is a controlled drug, we believe
it warrants an exemption from the act when used to help people with serious
illnesses. Smoking it relieves pain and stimulates appetite in many patients.

But the war on drugs has blinded the feds to the benefits of marijuana.

Californians saw past the anti-marijuana rhetoric in 1996 by overwhelmingly
passing Proposition 215. Numerous other states -- including Arizona,
Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- also have laws
that permit marijuana use on a doctor's recommendation.

Outraged by the common sense in the states, the federal government took the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative to court in a test case. Activists
established such distribution clubs because Proposition 215 failed to
address how sick people, if they don't grow the plants, are supposed to
obtain a safe and steady supply.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government's
request for an injunction against the club. But, in a judicial sleight of
hand, the court created a "medical necessity'' exception to the injunction,
allowing people access to marijuana if they could show that they had
serious medical conditions, would suffer "imminent harm'' without marijuana
and lacked legal alternatives to alleviate their symptoms.

Even this tough test didn't satisfy officials in Washington.

The justices technically aren't reviewing the merits of Proposition 215.
Instead the legal dispute before them is whether the Controlled Substances
Act prohibits medical necessity as a defense in civil lawsuits against the
clubs. We seriously doubt this conservative court is ready to establish a
precedent that could appear to compromise federal drug laws.

Last September the justices seemed to telegraph their intentions. The court
approved the federal government's emergency request to prohibit the Oakland
club from distributing marijuana. The phrase "states rights'' -- so often
the rally cry of this court -- wasn't uttered.

In fact, only Justice John Paul Stevens protested the emergency order. The
government, he said, "has failed to demonstrate that the denial of
necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance the
public interest or will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal
statutes.'' Stevens is correct, and we'd like to see his point become the
focus of today's arguments.

It's possible that the justices could punt on the medical necessity of
marijuana. Instead they could examine whether the lower court mishandled
the proceedings or overstepped its power.

Barring an outright win for the seriously ill, our hope is that any court
decision is limited. We see no legitimate reason to foreclose the ability
of the states to experiment with alternative ways to provide medicinal
marijuana to patients.