FED-STATE "CONFLICT"

To the Editor:

In your editorial of July 19, "Insulting Veto," you refer repeatedly to a
"conflict" between federal and state law arising out of the passage of
Prop. 215, the medical marijuana initiative, by the voters in 1996.

There is no "conflict," and it is wrong, I think, to perpetuate that idea.

Suppose the issue were taxes. If California were to repeal its state income
tax, would you say that created a "conflict" with federal law? Of course
not. The feds could still enforce federal tax laws, as they can now still
enforce federal drug laws.

Nothing says that a state must outlaw all conduct that the feds do. Indeed,
the very notion turns federalism on its head.

"Conflict" is what federal officials call it, who struggle to justify the
arrest and prosecution of medical marijuana patients under federal law.
Please don't buy into their rhetoric.

Richard M. Evans Attorney at Law 56 Main Street Northampton, Mass. 01060