MEDICINAL MARIJUANA

Marijuana has been controversial for decades, especially since its
emergence in the 1960s as a central prop in the often stoned
counterculture.

The battle lines are familiar.

Criminal penalties for marijuana distribution and possession can be
harsh, despite its widespread use. Evidence of addictive and
carcinogenic perils collides with claims that marijuana is no more
dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.

And, in recent years, some seriously ill people have insisted that
marijuana alleviates their pain and nausea, though medical evidence on
that point is inconclusive at best.

But these issues are sidelights in an important case now before the
U.S. Supreme Court, which must decide whether California and other
states can adopt laws allowing compassionate and medical use of
marijuana in apparent violation of federal drug statutes.

One wonders, of course, whether terrorism, anthrax and corporate
corruption wouldn't have been worthier targets of Attorney General
John Ashcroft's attention than home-grown marijuana supplies of
desperately ill citizens.

But the issue is nonetheless on the table. And whatever one's view of
marijuana, it seems clear that there is a compelling public interest
in having a single national policy on illegal and controlled
substances, and not the inevitable anarchy of 50 state approaches.

The justices' questions during oral arguments suggest the Court will
reach a similar conclusion. That would be wise.

Advocates of medical use of marijuana would still be free to press
their case, of course.

But the proper avenue for doing so is to establish its value through
rigorous trial under the federal Food and Drug Administration.

That would require compromise, both by marijuana supporters and
hard-liners opposed to FDA study of pot.

But it would open the door to a marijuana policy based on hard facts,
not hazy whim.