EXPLORE MEDICAL USES OF POT

The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding medical marijuana is based
on a reasonable interpretation of federal law. We doubt the court
would have reached an 8-0 decision otherwise.

Nonetheless, the likely consequence of the ruling will be that
thousands of sick people will suffer from lack of access to marijuana
and thousands of others will resort to buying it illegally. Meanwhile,
states that have legalized the medical use of marijuana are left in
legal limbo, wondering whether patients who continue to use pot as
medicine will be prosecuted under federal law.

Justices should have no problem justifying their ruling in technically
legal terms. Federal law lists marijuana as a dangerous, illegal
substance with no accepted medical use. In his majority opinion,
Justice Clarence Thomas stressed: "The statute reflects a
determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an
exception, outside the confines of a government-approved research project."

But while some experts contend that marijuana has no medicinal value
and that legal alternatives offer more benefits, ample numbers of
patients say otherwise. It is hard to dismiss the testimony of those
who say that nothing else provides the relief from a host of
illnesses, ranging from AIDS to migraine headaches, that marijuana
does.

Skeptics will say that this is simply anecdotal evidence. But part of
the problem is that no comprehensive studies have been conducted to
determine marijuana's effectiveness as a palliative. In 1999, a panel
of medical experts reported that marijuana appeared to have real
medical benefits for people suffering from cancer and AIDS, saying
that its active ingredient can ease pain, nausea and vomiting. The
Institute of Medicine, an affiliate of the National Academy of
Sciences, recommended tests to determine the validity of the claims.

Anti-marijuana forces immediately hoisted red flags, asserting that
opening the door to legalized use of pot in any form would be
dangerous. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking hinders a clear-eyed
approach to the possible medical benefits of marijuana. The critics
are too inhibited by the old images of "reefer madness" to approach
this issue sensibly.

Many other approved drugs marketed by pharmaceutical companies are far
more powerful and addictive than marijuana. There is no lobby
objecting to the use of codeine and morphine to relieve pain; why such
outrage at the prospect of using marijuana to help people in distress?

The high court may have reaffirmed the meaning of federal law in
regard to marijuana. But it is at odds with nine states whose voters
have approved laws allowing patients to use, grow and possess pot if
it is recommended by a doctor.

Congress could and should change the federal law to allow the states
to continue this experiment. It would be both the sensible and
compassionate thing to do.