OF MARIJUANA, DOCTORS AND THE HIGH COURT

Marijuana is just as illegal in the United States today as it was last
week. The recent U.S. Supreme Court action doesn't change that.

But by refusing to hear the federal government's case against a
California law, the court underscores the sanctity of the
doctor-patient relationship, and protects the ability of physicians to
give their patients the best possible advice.

The case focused on the California medical marijuana law, passed by
referendum in 1996, that allows patients to obtain, grow and use
marijuana if they have a doctor's recommendation. The law does not
give doctors the right to give marijuana to patients.

Many physicians believe that marijuana relieves the severe effects of
cancer, AIDS and other chronic diseases in some patients. They believe
dope, whether smoked or ingested, is particularly effective in helping
restore the appetite of patients with AIDS and those taking
chemotherapy. Eight other states have passed similar laws.

After the California law's passage, the Drug Enforcement Authority
during the Clinton administration threatened to revoke the
prescription-writing license of any doctor who recommended the use of
marijuana. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have argued that
medical use of marijuana subverts the government's battle against drugs.

A group of doctors sued the government over the DEA policy, claiming
that their First Amendment rights were at stake. The physicians won in
district court and at the federal appeals level. Last week, the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to take the case, which leaves the appeals court
decision intact.

This case doesn't settle the debate over the efficacy of medical
marijuana. One study shows that as many as 44% of oncologists have
recommended its use to cancer patients, but some doctors say marijuana
is only an intoxicant, not a medical drug.

Yet the court was not asked to determine the medical worth of pot. It
was asked to decide whether states have the right to establish their
own rules of medical practice, and whether doctors have the right to
talk freely to their patients. In both cases, the answer is yes.