THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DEBATE

A few thoughts on Nathan Riley's commentary, "Marijuana and the Law" (Jul.
21-27). First, the Supreme Court's ruling and the push by some California
cities to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries hardly constitute a
"one-two punch" to the medical marijuana movement. The high court for the
first time declared unconditionally, "Marijuana has valid therapeutic
purposes"--a historic milestone that is arguably much more important than
the technical effect of the ruling, which simply maintained the status quo.
State medical marijuana laws remain valid and fully in force, but do not
confer immunity from federal prosecution. That's the situation patients
have lived with for years.

As for local regulation, this is a good and necessary development. No one
in the medical marijuana movement wants a Wild West situation with no rules
and no accountability. Medical marijuana dispensaries must follow the law
and be good neighbors. Responsible local regulation is the best way to
ensure this--and the biggest obstacle to effective local regulation is
federal law that treats anyone providing medical marijuana to those living
with AIDS or cancer as no different than common drug dealers.

Second, the saga in Rhode Island is far from over. The governor's veto of
the medical marijuana bill was instantly and overwhelmingly overridden by
the State Senate. A House override vote will come later this summer.

Bruce Mirken Director of communications Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.