MARIJUANA RULING BURNS STATES

Some patients with deadly illnesses or painful conditions have found
that marijuana use is the only way they can come close to living
normal lives. Convinced of their plight, California and nine other
states chose to allow use of the illegal drug for medical purposes.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal law restricting
marijuana use to government-approved research overrides California's
voter- approved policy of allowing pot smoking for medical reasons.

This is surely a disappointment for patients who will now risk federal
prosecution if they use marijuana, but it is also a setback for
states, which should be allowed to make their own rules on traditional
state matters.

For decades federal lawmakers assumed even the most casual linkage to
the commerce clause gave them the right to subject states to their
political whims, and the high court went along with them. But under
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the court has properly scaled back
Congress' power to pass laws on matters normally handled by the states.

"The States' core police powers have always included authority to
define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of
their citizens," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who, joined by
Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented.

Yes, it's the policy of the federal government to curtail the growth,
distribution, sale and usage of marijuana. But in this case there was
no commercial motive. Two terribly ill women used the drug for medical
reasons. Their marijuana was grown in and used in California and was
clearly distinct from an illicit drug market. How could it have an
effect on interstate commerce?

Whether one believes the California law is courageous or misguided,
the states should be entitled to make these tough policy choices
without interference from the federal government.