MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE SPARKS PASSIONATE DEBATE

There is strong opposition to the three men from San Francisco facing
charges here for possession of marijuana.

The three men, proponents of medicinal marijuana, are currently awaiting a
decision from 5th District Court Judge Philip Eves regarding their legal --
at least in California and seven other states -- prescriptions to smoke
marijuana as treatment for alcoholism and depression.

Many suspect that the men are using the medicinal marijuana issue as a
backdoor entry into decriminalization of the herb, casting a shadow on
their credibility.

That's where the situation gets sticky.

It is tough to tell if these guys are arguing their case for medical use of
the drug with a wink and a nudge, acknowledging it as a way to consume
marijuana legally or for true medicinal benefits.

Meanwhile, we have three public servants investing an awful lot of time on
this case.

Attorney Dale Sessions, working in the capacity as a public defender, is in
a no-man's land where he's bound by law to defend these men and take them
at face value, that they are truly endeavoring to have their legal
prescriptions for pot recognized in the state of Utah.

Like any other attorney, he is charged with giving his client the best
defense possible, despite his personal beliefs and those of the community.

Iron County Attorney Scott Garrett is acting in his capacity as the
prosecuting arm of the state.

Judge Eves is in a similar boat.

He has to analyze the intricate legalities as they apply and make a
judicious decision, which, in reality, is much more difficult than it seems
on the surface.

His ruling, I can guarantee, has nothing to do with his personal views on
use of the herb, but will be based on his interpretation of the law, which
is good because marijuana is something that has polarized several
generations. That polarization is where the real debate lies.

Because of the social stigma attached to it, marijuana is one of those
subjects that will draw a passionate argument from both sides. As a result,
the debate about its medicinal properties will be ongoing, except in states
where voters take it into their own hands and decide if they want it
legalized for medicinal purposes or decriminalized for social purposes.

Because it has been so strongly associated with the fringe -- the jazz
musicians, the hippie movement, the rebellious youth -- it will be some
time before pot gets a fair day in the court of public opinion, no matter
how many cancer or AIDS patients come forward and swear to the value they
claim the drug has given to their quality of life or how many people swear
it has destroyed others.

Want an argument in favor of medicinal marijuana?

I can go to the Internet and reference books and pick out a thousand of them.

Want an argument against the use of medicinal marijuana?

I can get you a thousand of those, too.

For those reasons, it is difficult to give either side much credibility.

Those in favor will always be suspected of using the medicinal factor as a
smokescreen to get high.

Those opposed will always be suspected of placing a social agenda before
the facts, at least the facts as others see them.

Those suspicions will cloud whatever decision Eves makes, which is
unfortunate, because his ruling could potentially have far-reaching
ramifications.