RECLASSIFY MARIJUANA

The Supreme Court has dealt a setback to the drive to allow medical use of
marijuana. In an 8-to-0 ruling this week on a California case, the court
held that federal law recognizes no therapeutic benefits to the drug.
Therefore, cooperatives (such as those in Oakland) that distribute
marijuana to the sick can be blocked from doing so by federal authorities.
The court did not address whether the states themselves may distribute the
drug, or whether individual patients may grow or possess it.

Polls show widespread support for the medical use of marijuana. The drug
has been found to ease the side-effects of chemotherapy, along with the
symptoms of AIDS and other illnesses. However, substantial data are
lacking, in part because the drug is illegal. The paucity of information
has helped make Congress reluctant to reclassify marijuana (now a Schedule
I drug), despite repeated promptings from advocates.

Taking matters into their own hands, eight states have passed ballot
initiatives allowing the drug's medical use. The only New England state to
do so, Maine, is weighing legislation to establish a state-run distribution
center.

Almost certainly, more legal haggling is in store. The Supreme Court's
unanimity went only so far. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and David Souter noted that the broader question of whether someone
seriously ill might be allowed medical use of marijuana is still open.
(Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the ruling because his brother
was the case's trial judge.) Moreover, advocates are determined to continue
their quest.

Congress could save everyone considerable trouble if it would only find the
courage to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug (addictive but in
some cases beneficial). Americans trying to manage their own health care
would gain more of the kind of latitude they increasingly demand, and
deserve. And the many who place marijuana on a par with alcohol would
welcome the blow to hypocrisy. With a protracted court fight, the
inconsistencies in U.S. drug policy will only become more glaring. And
contempt for the law will increase.