STATE'S RIGHTS AFFIRMED

Now Let's Further Cure Medical Marijuana Policy

Bits of evidence keep turning up suggesting that the country is ready
- -- more ready than most politicians are yet -- to rethink outright
prohibition as the only possible way to deal with certain drugs or
substances. And some elements of the government seem ready to take
baby steps in the direction of a more sensible approach.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not take up a challenge
by San Diego and San Bernardino county governments to California's
landmark medical marijuana law, passed by the voters in 1996. And last
week Gil Kerlikowske, former police chief of Seattle and President
Obama's pick to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the
position colloquially referred to as "drug czar") said it was time for
the government to abandon the "war on drugs" metaphor.

For three years San Diego County has resisted the state law passed by
the Legislature to implement Prop. 215, the voter-approved medical
marijuana law. SB 420 set up a voluntary medical marijuana identity
card program to be administered by county health departments. San
Diego County resisted doing so, arguing that federal law still
prohibits marijuana and facilitating medical marijuana patients would
put county officials in violation of federal law. That argument was
rejected by the superior court, and affirmed by a California appellate
court. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the county's
appeal so the county threw a "hail Mary" pass to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That high court declined to make the catch.

In doing so it affirmed the constitutional principle of federalism
that permits states to have different approaches, especially on health
and medical issues, than the national government does. Some
foot-dragging officials have tried to argue that federal supremacy,
which applies when the national government "occupies" a field and
trumps contradictory state laws, applies in this case. The U.S.
Supreme Court let it be known that it does not. California (and 13
other states) treat the medicinal use of marijuana differently (and
more intelligently) than federal law does. Deal with it.

Counties -- including ID card holdouts Sutter and Colusa counties -- and
cities are subdivisions of the state government, and the duty of
officials at those levels is to enforce state law, even when there
appears to be a contradiction with federal law, unless a federal court
has ruled that federal supremacy prevails. San Diego County tried and
failed to get courts to so rule. Law enforcement and other officials
who have argued a duty to uphold federal law against medical marijuana
users and providers now have no legal leg to stand upon.

Federal officials still have the power to enforce their prohibitory
laws against medical marijuana patients and providers, but U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the Drug Enforcement
Administration will no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries
unless there's evidence they are violating state law as well. Trying
to nullify state law by that backdoor method is simply not a priority
for this administration. Good.

Kerlikowske's decision to abandon the "war on drugs" metaphor because
"We're not at war with people in this country" is a welcome symbolic
move, but it will be hollow unless it is followed by policy changes
that will likely involve changes in federal law. As long as the
national government has strict prohibitory laws against marijuana and
other drugs, the only available methods of trying to enforce them are
warlike. Mr. Kerlikowske may channel more funds to treatment and
prevention than to enforcement, but if he is serious about ending the
state of war he must recommend changes in the law as well.

Things are getting interesting.