FEDS HAVE NO BUSINESS MEDDLING WITH MEDICAL-MARIJUANA INITIATIVES

Casually and with virtually no debate, U.S. representatives recently
rejected the idea that marijuana might have a medicinal application for
patients who seek relief.

It is a position that ignores a growing body of evidence both anecdotal and
factual.

Some advocates of so-called medical marijuana would contend the
congressional action borders on the inhumane.

House Joint Resolution 117, passed 310-93 earlier this month, with no public
hearings, is not a new law. It's simply a "sense of the Congress" resolution
to the effect that Congress believes marijuana to be dangerous and
addictive, and that Congress is unequivocally opposed to the legalization of
marijuana for medical use.

It also directs the U.S. attorney general to prepare reports on how much
marijuana has been eradicated through federal efforts in recent years and
the annual number of arrests and prosecutions for federal marijuana
offenses.

In essence, the House stuck its finger in the eye of California and Arizona
voters, who recently passed initiatives to make marijuana available to
patients with the recommendation of licensed physicians.

The resolution also is a shot across the bow for states including our own,
where similar proposals are pending on the November ballot.

Even more important, the House move told thousands of patients and their
doctors - who believe that marijuana can alleviate their conditions, often
with less serious and dangerous side-effects than "standard" prescription
medications - that Congress is pleased to see them continue to suffer or to
obtain relief only at the price of becoming criminals.

A smart-aleck might call it the "Congress has no compassion" resolution.

The stated intention of this resolution was to chide California and Arizona
voters and to weigh in on medical-marijuana initiative races in Alaska,
Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and possibly the District of Columbia.
The message? A Congress filled with lawyers should have a veto power when
patients and doctors are considering the medicinal use of a plant about
which the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration reported that "there are simply no credible medical records
to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death."

The old joke is that if "pro" is the opposite of "con," then Congress must
be the opposite of progress. Sadly, Congress sometimes makes the quip seem
more truth than joke.

We'll withhold for now our own recommendation to voters on Colorado's
pending ballot initiative on the subject. Our concern for now is twofold:
Whether Congress or any body of elected lawmakers is more competent than
one's own physician in deciding what should be prescribed to ease our
suffering; and whether Congress, of all elected bodies, has any business at
all telling individual states what to do on this issue.

Though it may well be largely moot at this stage in American history to
press the point, Congress was never empowered by the framers of our
Constitution to meddle in such matters. That should be clear from any honest
reading of the 10th Amendment under the Bill of Rights.

Whatever the value of marijuana in easing pain, shouldn't the states be
pondering that consideration for themselves?

Checked-by: Don Beck