MARIJUANA DECISION PERPETUATES STANDOFF

Legally speaking, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Monday was
unsurprising and broke no new ground. The court, in Gonzales v.
Raich, did what most observers predicted: It reaffirmed that federal
law enforcement officials have the power to enforce federal laws
banning marijuana possession and cultivation against seriously ill
patients who use physician-approved marijuana for medical purposes.

In so ruling, the court maintained the legal status quo that has been
in place for several decades.

Practically, the decision promises to perpetuate the political
standoff, brewing since the mid-'90s, between state and federal
governments regarding medical marijuana. Despite the Raich ruling,
states remain free to enact and enforce laws permitting sick people
to use medical marijuana. Meanwhile, the federal government still has
a choice -- it can waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick and
dying patients or it can pursue individuals who pose a real danger to society.

To date, 11 states (including Washington) in the past eight years
have enacted statutes permitting seriously ill patients to use
physician-approved medical marijuana to relieve their suffering. It
is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 such patients are
benefiting from the laws.

The Raich case involved a valiant legal gambit by two California
women patients, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, to prevent federal law
enforcement officials from seizing their herbal medicine and
arresting them for violating federal drug laws. Monson has a
degenerative spinal disorder and Raich suffers from multiple
debilitating conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor. She had
tried 30 other medicines, and marijuana has proved to be her only
effective analgesic. Nevertheless, the court refused to rein in the
power of federal police to interfere with her state-sanctioned medicine.

Mounting scientific evidence about marijuana's medical efficacy, and
Congress' refusal to change federal law on this issue, are almost
certain to energize more states to pass laws that confer state
protections on people who need medical marijuana.

Indeed, even the high court acknowledged in its Raich decision that
the evidence on behalf of medical marijuana should "cast serious
doubt" on Congress' decision to keep it illegal under federal law.

If history is any guide, it appears that federal officials lack
either the will or the resources to arrest or prosecute more than a
handful of the tens of thousands of people using medical marijuana
around the country, perhaps because federal juries are reluctant to
convict sick people for using a medicine that relieves their pain.

The average medical marijuana patient who complies with state law
likely will have little to fear from the federal police. Of course,
even a single federal prosecution of a sick person for using a
physician-recommended medication is too many, and occurs against the
will of the majority: At least 70 percent of U.S. adults support
patients' access to medical marijuana.

In his majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the
issue of medical marijuana should be heard in Congress. Meanwhile,
the House will soon have a chance to protect vulnerable patients by
voting yes on a bipartisan amendment by Reps. Maurice Hinchey,
D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., which would prohibit the
Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration from spending
any money on undermining state medical marijuana laws.

Last year, almost 150 representatives signed on to the Hinchey/
Rohrabacher amendment, and this year it is poised to pick up more
support. It is a win-win for elected officials: By voting for the
amendment, they are not only doing what's popular with their
constituents, they are doing what's right.