MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGAL AS SAFE, PRESCRIBED MEDICINE

Nothing involving drugs, legal or illegal, these days is
simple.

If it were simple, critically or terminally ill people would have easy
access to safe, affordable medicine and other remedies to ease their
pain and improve their conditions.

If the thing that helps is marijuana, fine. There is scientific and
anecdotal evidence to indicate that marijuana decreases nausea among
people who take chemotherapy, as well as eases other medical conditions.

PATIENTS SHOULD be able to get marijuana with their doctors' approval
without being treated like criminals and without fearing that they'll
be busted by Drug Enforcement Administration officers.

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is not as simple as it appears
on its face. It is not about whether or not marijuana is medically
useful; it is about the government's ability to regulate commerce and
whether that authority includes seizing homegrown drugs.

While federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic, 11
states have laws that allow it to be used medicinally. The current
case centers on a lawsuit brought by two California women who say they
need marijuana daily for chronic pain.

DEA officials confiscated homegrown plants from the yard of one of the
plaintiffs. The woman has a brain tumor and other medical conditions.
She had been growing her own marijuana and was using it under a
doctor's care.

The issue is complicated further because the supply of medical
marijuana dried up three years ago when the Supreme Court declined to
protect distributors from federal anti-drug charges. As a result, the
so-called "pot docs" of California prescribe a drug that their
patients cannot obtain in pharmacies or legally from any other source.

PATIENTS HAVE to find their own or grow their own. And that's what
they've been doing in California and elsewhere.

The two women whose cases are at the center of this case say they have
no intention of selling marijuana or violating federal laws of
interstate commerce.

Justices, in their questioning of attorneys on both sides, indicated
they may be concerned about phony medical claims and potential abuse,
as well as erosion of the government's ability to regulate illegal
drugs. Product safety is another concern. The Bush administration
opposes medical marijuana use, saying it undermines the war on drugs.

If the justices rule against the critically ill patients, the laws in
California and 10 other states would be called into question, not to
mention the trauma it would cause to people who get relief from cannabis.

SURELY THERE IS some way to regulate marijuana so that a safe supply
is available for people who need it for medicinal purposes. The
government successfully regulates other narcotics that also are
coveted on the street. Some of those drugs do make it to the street,
but they also make it into the medicine cabinets of people who need
them desperately.

Seriously ill and dying patients should not be deprived of drugs to
ease their pain by the government's inability to adequately control
illegal trafficking.

As they consider this case, the Supreme Court justices might think of
their ailing colleague, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is
temporarily out of commission as he undergoes chemotherapy for thyroid
cancer. Patients just like him are getting relief in 11 states from
pain and nausea that can accompany the disease and treatment.

Maybe they will conclude that compassion in this matter can coexist
with law enforcement.