REGULATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the validity of state
laws governing the medical use of marijuana is more about federal
authority to regulate interstate commerce than the use of pot to
alleviate pain. And it is appropriate that the feds win this case.
Nonetheless, this whole legal battle would be unnecessary if the
federal government had responded in a reasonable way to the
grass-roots (excuse the pun) movement to find a way to allow seriously
ill patients to use marijuana as a palliative. Instead, the Justice
Department, fueled by John Ashcroft's missionary zeal, has gone out of
its way to challenge state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana,
charging that such laws encourage drug abuse.

Currently, 11 states have laws on the books that permit the legal use
of marijuana -- with a doctor's consent -- to relieve pain resulting
from cancer, AIDS and other wasting diseases. Many of the patients who
use marijuana are terminal, including one of the plaintiffs in the
case before the Supreme Court, Angel Raich of Oakland, Calif., who
suffers from an inoperable brain tumor. She tried dozens of
prescription medicines before turning to pot.

A wealth of research and patient testimony confirms that marijuana
serves a medical purpose that other drugs can't. The efforts by states
to find a way to allow patients to use marijuana legally reflects the
consensus that it has real medical value.

But the federal government has stubbornly refused to recognize the
medicinal role marijuana can play. Instead, the Ashcroft Justice
Department has done its best to deny patients access to the drug.

In strictly legal terms, the federal government is on solid ground in
this case. The hodgepodge of state laws governing the medical use of
marijuana demand federal oversight. To uphold the right of states to
govern the disbursement of an otherwise illegal drug threatens federal
authority over interstate commerce. And that authority is the crucial
foundation for government regulation of civil rights laws,
environmental protection, labor laws and more.

The obvious solution, however, would for the Food and Drug
Administration to designate marijuana for medical use and regulate it
as it does so many other more dangerous and addictive drugs. States
then would be free to enact sensible laws to regulate medical
marijuana using federal guidelines.

More likely, the feds, fearing that they would appear to be
sanctioning the recreational use of marijuana, will simply continue to
dismantle state laws allowing its medical use. And in so doing, they
will deny relief to thousands of people who might benefit from this
drug.

Even if justices rule against plaintiffs in this case, we hope the
ruling will contain language that encourages the government to look
past hidebound attitudes toward marijuana and recognize its proven
medical value.