MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS NEEDED BY SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENTS

The federal government is waging war on some of our most vulnerable
citizens, who Washington voters have acted to protect. Soon, our
congressional representatives will have the chance to stand up for
those people -- seriously ill patients who need medical marijuana.

This is an issue we both know personally. One of us is a physician
and researcher specializing in rehabilitation medicine and
neuromuscular diseases such as ALS ("Lou Gehrig's disease"). The
other is a cancer survivor who got through the nausea and vomiting
caused by chemotherapy with the help of marijuana, and who has again
found relief with marijuana from the chronic pain caused by injuries
in a car accident.

We have seen that medical marijuana safely helps some patients who
get no relief from conventional medications. Washington voters did
the right thing when we passed our medical marijuana law a decade
ago. A dozen states now have similar laws, and none have been repealed.

Meanwhile, medical community support continues to solidify. New
studies have documented marijuana's ability to relieve nerve pain
caused by HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other conditions. In
February, the American College of Physicians -- representing 124,000
oncologists, neurologists and other doctors of internal medicine --
released a position paper declaring that the scientific evidence
"supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions."

The ACP specifically called on the federal government to reclassify
marijuana to permit medical use, but our government simply refuses.
Federal officials have arrested patients and caregivers who were
following state medical marijuana laws, and could make more such
arrests any time.

That's why Congress must act.

In its 2005 case, Gonzales v. Raich, the U.S. Supreme Court punted
the issue to Congress. The court declined to change the status quo,
under which patients protected by state law can still face federal
prosecution. But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority,
went out of his way to note that patients Angel Raich and Diane
Monson had made "strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable
harm, because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary,
marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes." He pointedly
expressing hope that Raich, Monson and their supporters "may one day
be heard in the halls of Congress."

That chance will come this month.

When the appropriations bill that funds the Justice Department
reaches the House floor, an amendment will be offered that seeks to
bar the department from using any of its money to attack medical
marijuana patients in states where medical use is legal. Called the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment after sponsors Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.,
and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., the amendment has been proposed in
each of the past several sessions and has steadily gained support.

Washington's representatives have been oddly inconsistent. Reps. Jay
Inslee and Jim McDermott have been supporters every year, while Dave
Reichert has voted no since he joined Congress in 2005. Reps. Rick
Larsen, Norm Dicks and Adam Smith have all voted yes at least twice,
but Larsen switched to no in 2005 and Smith voted no last year.

Perhaps they remember how well "I voted for it before I voted against
it" worked for Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

But the tide is turning. The medical community is increasingly
united, and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack
Obama says it's time to end the federal war on state medical marijuana laws.

That's encouraging, but we don't need to wait for a new president.
Washington's congressional representatives should stand up for
Washington patients and support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.