OUR OPINION - POLITICIANS HURRY TO MAKE QUICK FIX

Several thoughts for a Monday morning:

Political expediency: Isn't it amazing how quickly Pennsylvania's
legislators can act when a politically attractive piece of legislation hits
their desks? Last week, amid hysteria about a methadone clinic planned for
Spring Garden Township, the state House rushed through legislation designed
to prevent its opening.

The haste was in response to pressure from suburbanites who may have based
their judgment more on fear than fact. Perhaps this bill is needed, but
there's no way of knowing without a thoughtful process that includes time to
study the issue before voting.

Residents' worries about the clinic endangering neighborhood children,
safety and property values are understandable. But some studies show crime
rates actually fall after methadone becomes available and addicts no longer
need to steal to feed their habits.

And other legislation languishing on land-use planning and child care, for
example, might better address the issues of property values and children.
But banning a methadone clinic is, like heroin, a quick fix, and, like
Monica, a sexier issue for politicians to grasp.

Medical marijuana: Should doctors be able to write prescriptions for
marijuana? Voters in California, Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington say they should. Last week, a government study came to much the
same conclusion. It found that the active ingredients in marijuana appear to
be useful for treating pain, glaucoma, and the nausea and severe weight loss
associated with chemotherapy and AIDS. (See the Joanne Jacobs column
elsewhere on this page.)

But don't try to confuse lawmakers with facts when dealing with such a
hot-button issue.

Legislation allowing the medical use of marijuana is unlikely. Legalization
for medicinal use may, however, come through the courts. Attracting less
attention than the federal report was a decision last week by a federal
judge in Philadelphia. U.S. District Judge Marvin Katz refused to dismiss a
medical marijuana lawsuit that would legalize the drug for medicinal use. He
ruled that plaintiffs may try to prove that the government has no reason to
deny the drug to people who are seriously ill.

The plaintiffs in question claim that they are being denied equal protection
of the law. The base their claim on a federal "compassionate use" program
that supplies as many as 300 government-grown marijuana cigarettes a month
to a tiny number of participants. The program began in 1978 with less than
20 patients and it stopped accepting new participants in 1992. Only eight of
the original group survive and continue to receive the drug from the
government.

"The court cannot say that the government's decision to give marijuana to
several people who are ill and the government's refusal to give it to the
plaintiffs, who are also ill, is rational as a matter of law when plaintiffs
have not had the opportunity to try to prove otherwise," wrote Judge Katz.

The answer must come from facts, not the abstractions and dogma, he ruled.
This, of course, means the answer is unlikely to come from politicians.