LEGALIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal drug law provides no
exemptions for the medical use of marijuana, and no state law can change that.

In this case the state was California, one of a few that permit people to
legally use marijuana if a doctor says it helps with the symptoms of AIDS,
cancer or other medical conditions. It is a very limited legalization that
springs from the nation's compassion and doesn't contribute to its drug
problem.

There is as yet no hard scientific proof of marijuana's medical benefits.
But many patients and doctors say that, for some patients, smoking a joint
is the only thing that stems the horrible side effects of chemotherapy or
the physical wasting caused by AIDS. They say the drug can reduce nausea
and vomiting and restore appetite better than other treatments, including
the pricey pill that concentrates THC, one of marijuana's active ingredients.

The need is small but desperate. Meeting it is not going to unleash some
new drug problem. And these patients should not have to deal with a pusher
on the corner to solve a medical problem.

Federal law should be changed to permit careful, controlled medical use of
the drug in states that pass laws to allow it. New Jersey should be one of
them.

The Supreme Court was ruling on the legality of cannabis-buying groups,
cooperatives that have organized to provide qualifying patients with
marijuana. They operated with the blessing of state and local law
enforcement. The court said the groups cannot claim a legal exemption for
distributing marijuana to meet medical needs. But what of the argument that
group distribution should be encouraged, though regulated, as a way to
maintain tighter control over supplies meant for medical use?

The ruling does not say patients in states permitting medical marijuana
must stop using the drug if they can get it. And it remains to be seen if
the federal government will go after cancer patients growing personal
supplies in states that say they can.

We do know this: The drug law the court pointed to was written 30 years
ago, and 30 years is a long time when it comes to medicine and science. It
was written before the cancer chemotherapy revolution. It was written
before AIDS.

This is not just a case of potheads claiming to be sick so they can get
high. Many well-respected members of the medical community who prescribe
the alternative pills and treatments - and say they work in most cases -
also say they fail a subset of patients for whom smoking marijuana works.

This is a matter of sovereign states - not pushers or underground movements
- - proceeding with a plan that neither restrains anyone's rights nor forces
anyone to participate. And that should make our states' rights-loving
Supreme Court downright giddy.