NO GAIN FOR PAIN

Medical Marijuana

There's plenty to criticize about America's drug policy and the law upon
which it's based, the federal Controlled Substances Act. But it's hard to
disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this week on medical marijuana.

The court concluded that the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, a
non-profit group created to provide marijuana to seriously ill
Californians, cannot claim a "medical necessity" exemption to federal drug
law. No such exemption exists. Had Congress wanted to, it could have -- and
still can -- create one.

Left unresolved, however, are a slew of closely related, and ultimately
more difficult, questions. Among the most basic: Is there a generally
accepted medical use for marijuana?

Despite a history of medicinal use that stretches back thousands of years,
and anecdotal reports by thousands of patients with AIDS, glaucoma, muscle
spasticity and cancer, most doctors would say there is not. Other drugs are
used to treat the same symptoms, but because they don't work for everyone,
some patients have turned to marijuana. Doctors also dislike the fact that
marijuana varies in potency and has a number of active ingredients. They
would be most comfortable prescribing a drug that has consistent potency
and contains only the necessary ingredients.

But the biggest barrier to the acceptance of marijuana is the lack of
peer-reviewed scientific studies. In part, that's because marijuana can't
be patented -- and that means drug companies won't fund studies. It also
stems from marijuana's status under federal drug law, which has discouraged
research.

The 1970 Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana, along with cocaine and
heroin, as so-called Schedule I drugs for which there is "no currently
accepted medical use." The same law classifies the stimulant cocaine as a
narcotic, or sleep-inducing drug. Both assertions are fiction. Heroin, for
example, has long been used by doctors in the United Kingdom to ease the
agonizing pain of terminal cancer patients. Some American physicians might
use it that way, too. But the federal government prohibits that for fear
such medical use would undermine the War on Drugs.

The same fears prompted this latest federal action. Nine states have passed
laws giving patients the right to obtain marijuana for medical purposes.
Technically, federal law supersedes that, but it's hard to imagine what
public good is served by prosecuting seriously ill marijuana smokers.

It's worth noting that Congress outlawed marijuana in 1937, against the
advice of the American Medical Association, and over the objections of
conservatives who maintained the law was an unconstitutional intrusion into
states' rights -- something the present Supreme Court holds dear.

With this week's ruling, the court has answered -- correctly -- a narrow
question of federal law. But the more difficult questions about medical
marijuana remain.