SUFFERING AND STATES' RIGHTS

Caught in the U.S. Supreme Court's stampede to embrace the
Constitution's commerce clause are seriously ill patients who rely on
marijuana to ease their suffering. The court's 6-3 opinion to prohibit
the use of marijuana for medical purposes, even in the 11 states that
have expressly legalized it, has real consequences that stretch beyond
constitutional theory. Are federal agents going to break down the
front doors of the sick who rely on the drug for pain relief and
arrest them?

In the states where the use of medical marijuana is permitted (Florida
is not one of them), it is unlikely local and state law enforcement
officials will be conducting raids. Federal agents have better things
to do, but the uncompromising rhetoric from the White House suggests
patients who ignore the court opinion run some risk if they continue
to light up. The most pragmatic response would be for Congress to ban
the Justice Department from going after such patients. The House will
consider an appropriations amendment next week that would accomplish
that goal.

The Supreme Court, whose conservative majority has been steering a
course that favors state rights over federal jurisdiction in issues
such as carrying guns near schools, turned to the commerce clause to
support the federal ban on medical marijuana. The commerce clause has
been effectively used to protect workers and the environment and fight
segregation, among other issues. But the use of marijuana by the
seriously ill who need some comfort does not rise to those priorities.

The balance of power between the federal government and the states is
a constitutional issue worthy of serious debate and reflection. That
offers no solace to patients who risk arrest if they don't stop using
marijuana to ease very real pain.