REEFER MADNESS

The insanity over drugs has got to end. Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court voted 7-1 to suspend a federal court ruling which permitted an Oakland 11 "cannabis club" to distribute marijuana to people suffering from illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. The justices may hear oral arguments in the case next term.

Californians adopted the medical marijuana law in 1996, by an overwhelming majority, and similar laws have passed in states from Alaska to Maine. Yet the mad zeal of some - who believe they have the right to tell us what we may and may not put into our own bodies - continues unabated.

The most ridiculous case occurred in Washington, D.C. in 1998, when voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

But Representative Bob Barr was able to prohibit the government from even counting the votes in that election.

As one writer put it, "137,523 votes were nullified by the Congress of the United States." Drug Czar - and how right that term is - Barry McCaffrey said that "These initiatives in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state are deceptive and dangerous.

Allowing a purported medication to circumvent federal approval does a great disservice to the American public." What is "deceptive" and "dangerous" about letting people use a drug if they want to - even if that drug might make them high? Cough medicine contains a good deal of alcohol, and yet if a state were to ban cough medicine, federal legislators would probably throw a fit.

Turn it around and let a congressman like Georgia's Bob Barr tell Californians whether they may smoke marijuana - and that's acceptable? Cancer and AIDS can be incredibly painful, and yet the treatments for these diseases cause so much nausea that patients vomit up pain medication in pill form. Marijuana smoke could relieve their pain.

Kaiser Permanente, the American Cancer Association, and the National Institutes of Health all advocate studying marijuana's possible medical uses. But legislators who think the "betterment of society" is more important than relieving the pain of these terminal diseases demonstrate their compassion by calling such measures "deceptive" and defrauding people of the right to vote.

Just last June, medical marijuana activist Peter McWilliams choked to death on his own vomit while taking a bath. A poet and publisher, McWilliams used marijuana to relieve the pain caused by his AIDS. William F. Buckley called him "a wry, mythogenic guy, humorous, affectionate, articulate, shrewd, sassy." But Federal Judge George King called him a criminal.

McWilliams was being tried for raising weed, and King prohibited him from mentioning Proposition 215 in his defense - or even from telling the jury that he had AIDS.

He also prohibited McWilliams from using marijuana while on bail. What sort of madness condemns a man like Pete McWilliams to such a gruesome death, prohibits scientific studies on possible new medicines and even forbids voters in Washington, D.C. from having their votes counted?

The Drug War is just that - a war. Only this is a war, merciless and brutal, against our own citizens.

And what is the result of war? James Madison said, "Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded." And freedom has suffered a great deal. Customers at pharmacies may only purchase a certain number of Sudafed capsules.

Students in public schools are forced to take drug tests.

In Ohio, a new ordinance requires people purchasing five kegs of beer to sign a waiver five days before the party, giving police permission to search the premises without warning.

In Albuquerque, the city may seize your house, not only if you sell drugs there, but also if you serve alcohol to minors.

If you go away for the weekend, and your teenager throws a party - watch out. You can't even smoke in a bar in California, even if you own it and all your waitresses smoke. This is insanity.

As Jacob Sullum writes, "Republicans favor federalism - but not when they're trying to distance themselves from Big Tobacco. Then they're happy to support a national tobacco policy for which there is no constitutional authority.

Democrats defend freedom of speech - but not for people who make cigarettes.

They'd rather see Nazis march through Skokie than see the Marlboro Man ride across a billboard.

Republicans are suspicious of overreaching government - but not when it comes to 'public health.' Democrats insist on a woman's right to control her own body - but not if she's a smoker." Like most Americans, I hate drugs, and I've never taken them. But like many Americans, I also think people should be allowed to decide this for themselves - especially when the result of our current policy is pain, suffering and tyranny.