HIGH COURT RULING ON MEDICAL 'POT' NOT FINAL

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out California's
"medical marijuana" law should will not, nor should it, end the effort
to find a legal way to use this drug for compassionate medical purposes.

Effectively, the federal law prohibiting the use of marijuana for
medical treatment is a political rather than a scientific decision by
Congress. And it is a decision that stands on rapidly shifting sands.

In due course, Congress will recognize certain medical uses for
marijuana (as it does for many other controlled drugs), and we can begin
to move forward.

In fact, the relative lack of accepted evidence about the possible
benefits of marijuana in medical treatment is due at least in part
because it is generally unavailable for legitimate medical research and
treatment.

In the meantime, the high court's decision provides new legal ammunition
to federal prosecutors who might seek to enforce the federal law in
states where local jurisdictions have chosen to allow limited use of
marijuana for medical purposes.

Hawai'i is one such jurisdiction. Our hope is that the federal
prosecutor here will move carefully before seeking to make criminals out
of the scores of Island residents who now have permits to use marijuana
to treat their medical condition.

To be clear, the Supreme Court did not say there is no constitutional
right to use marijuana for medical treatment.

It simply said the law -- as written by Congress -- does not permit it.
Congress has made medical exemptions for many other controlled
substances, but not for marijuana, the high court pointed out.

If Congress had wanted to create a medical-use exemption, it could have
done so.

All this says is that Congress lags behind the advanced thinking of
states such as California and Hawai'i. Note also that several other
states, including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington, have also approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of
medical marijuana.

It is perfectly plausible to argue that the medical evidence is not yet
completely in on the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of glaucoma,
nausea and other conditions. Yet while it has its doubters, there are
many in the medical and scientific communities who believe it can help.

The political climate is changing and so, too, will Congress. Until that
day comes, there is little to be gained and much to be lost if the
option to enforce this outdated federal law is pursued more vigorously
than is necessary.