COMPASSION IN THE WAR WE CAN'T WIN

New Direction In War On Drugs Is Welcome

With all that's going on in the world and with the economy, a big
shift in the national dialogue on illegal drugs has gone relatively
unnoticed. But at the federal level, the change in our decades-long,
totally unwinnable "War on Drugs" is a welcome shift, both in tone
and practice.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals from two
California counties that object to that state's medical marijuana
law. The counties had sought to defeat the state's 13-year-old law
that allows people suffering from various illnesses a license to
possess and use marijuana, saying the authorization is at odds with
the federal government's "zero tolerance" drug policy.

In a shift from previous top prosecutors, Attorney General Eric H.
Holder recently said the federal government will not be devoting a
lot of effort prosecuting low-level marijuana cases. And now, the
Supreme Court's rejection bolsters the state laws -- although it
should be noted that officially, the sale or use of marijuana is
still considered illegal by the U.S. government.

The attorney general's statement and the Supreme Court's action are
good news for patients who live in states with compassionate
marijuana laws. Like California, Colorado recognizes the relief that
marijuana can bring to some patients with HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma
and the severe pain and nausea that comes from those and other ailments.

Colorado's medical marijuana law was passed by the voters in 2000.
Almost 7,400 people have applied to be registered as medical
marijuana patients. Some registrations have expired, some patients
have died, 35 applications were rejected and 18 cards have been
revoked. Today, there are about 5,920 medical marijuana users here,
including 560 in Boulder, 48 in Broomfield and 255 in nearby Weld.

Severe pain accounts for about 88 percent of the users -- though some
patients register for multiple ailments, such as severe pain and
cancer. Whether or not pot should be legalized and regulated
full-stop is a question for another time: The high court's rejection
of the California case allows states like our own to continue
compassionate care.

Elsewhere in the war:

Gil Kerlikowske, the newly named head of the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, said that the country will shift toward
an emphasis on treatment over incarceration to try and reduce drug use.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs'
or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them. We're not
at war with people in this country," Kerlikowske said in his first
interview last week.

This is a most welcome shift: We need to start being honest about the
costs of this war. Our prisons are filled with people busted for even
low-level drug use. "Zero tolerance" policies filter down to even the
smallest of municipalities: That where a school district will strip
search a very young girl, because she was suspected of having Ibuprofen.

Meanwhile, a real, actual, bloody and terroristic war rages right
over our own border because of our laws and our seemingly insatiable
appetite for illegal drugs.

With the words of our new Attorney General, our new drug czar and the
actions of our Supreme Court, we are optimistic about this shift in
"war" strategy.

- -- Erika Stutzman, for the Camera editorial board