The general mess created by our drug laws has reached a tropical low in Los
Angeles, where the storm center gathers over the head of Peter McWilliams.
Here is the political background:

In November 1996, the California voters endorsed a plebiscite (Proposition
215) that authorizes the purchase of marijuana by any Californian with a
doctor's recommendation. Doctors are supposed to write out that prescription
only when cannabis provides unique relief. That law conflicted with federal
statutes that make the smoking of marijuana a crime at any time, including -
to observe the language - on your deathbed.

The question immediately arose: What do we do about these conflicting
jurisdictions? Everybody waited for everybody else to act. The most that
Attorney General Dan Lungren would do (he is running for governor) was
promise to observe the new law "minimally."

But of course the reciprocal gears of justice do not here interlock glibly.
The marijuana lobby in California is sincerely interested in making the weed
available to the sick, who are said to profit greatly from it. But the
marijuana lobby in California is also sincerely interested in anybody's
getting marijuana who wants marijuana, and the political story here took
flesh and blood in Peter McWilliams.

McWilliams is a middle-aged literary man-about-town. He has written 30 books
that range in concern from poetry to love to computers to moral anarchy. He
is a self described libertarian who believes that no law should be passed
that gets in the way of anybody doing anything he wants to do, provided it
doesn't hurt somebody else; and that such laws as are on the books that
conflict with libertarian doctrine should be treated only with just such as
much respect as is necessary to keep you out of jail.

On July 23, the feds concluded that McWilliams and partners were not
sufficiently complying with the law. McWilliams, who has always appreciated
the lighter side of life and thought, had lent money from his tiny
publishing firm to an entrepreneur who used it to nurture 4,000 marijuana
plants. Why? Well, if a doctor is entitled under the law to prescribe
marijuana, then he has to get it somewhere, does he not? Parthenogenesis
won't give you fresh supplies of marijuana, even in California.

So the feds announced themselves at 6 in the morning, with handcuffs, and
took away not only McWilliams but also his computer with all its records.
They demanded bail of $250,000. His lawyer pleaded against the draconian
extreme of the bail demanded. The defense was perfectly glad to give up
Peter's passport. Did anybody really think he would not show up at his
trial?

Pressures of another kind were inflicted. McWilliams has AIDS and also a
form of lymphoma. The treatment prescribed by his doctor is complex and
delicately balanced and is required six times every day. The failure of the
prison authorities to give him the doses as called for has resulted in
frequent nausea, no trivial complaint given that in that condition, those
who suffer from that combination of maladies McWilliams suffers from run the
risk of contracting a terminal case of tuberculosis.

The meltdown is therfore now scheduled. A few months from now, McWilliams
and his fellow defendants will insist that they were not guilty of any
criminal intent. No money changed hands. True, McWilliams did at one point
pass off the wisecrack that he wished to become the "Bill Gates of medical
marijuana." But you don't go to prison for making wild statements about a
fantasy life, any more than Bill Clinton goes to prison for making wild
statements about celibate behavior.

But in ruling on McWilliams vs. the United States, prosecutors are going to
have to face headlong the California argument. At one level, California will
argue the Ninth and 10th level, Amendments to the Constitution, which
prohibit federal activity in areas reserved to the states under the
Constitution.

That defense will be half-hearted, because the justice establishment in
California never liked Proposition 215, and don't like McWilliams, who is an
enthusiast for marijuana, which he proclaims (in publications protected by
the First Amendment) as suitable to give relief for most adult aches and
pains.

It will be a very interesting trial, and it is likely that many institutions
will weigh in with amici curiae pleading their own judgments of law,
conflicts, drugs and liberty. Meanwhile, one hopes that Peter McWilliams,
something if a bird of paradise, is left alone to take proper care of
himself.

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst