VIEW ON MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

To the editor:

The Supreme Court decided earlier this month that Congress has the power to
prohibit the growing and possession of marijuana for medical use in
compliance with state law. The decision written by "liberal" Justice
Stevens expressed hope that through "the democratic process, in which the
voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the
halls of Congress." Nine days later the House of Representatives rejected
161 - 264 a bipartisan amendment to next year's appropriations for the
Justice Department that would have effectively reversed the Supreme Court's
decision. One hundred and sixty-one votes is the most ever received in
Congress on this issue. Except for Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts' nine
other representatives were among the 161. Federal elected officials are
starting to hear the public on medical marijuana, as well they should given
the passage of most medical use laws by initiative.

With the defeat of the amendment attention turns to H.R. 2087, the
States Rights To Medical Marijuana Act, reintroduced by Barney Frank,
with Michael Capuano, James McGovern and John Olver among the
earliest co-sponsors. This bill would reclassify marijuana as a
Schedule 2 substance with recognized medical benefits, force the
federal government to stay out of the lives of persons complying with
their state's medical cannabis laws, and would permit states to grow
their citizens' supply.

To those who illicitly use medical cannabis in Massachusetts this
would be a blessing, because since 1991 Massachusetts law has
permitted its use, but only if in the state program. That program
requires a legal source and the federal government refuses to provide
it.

If you think that John Tierney, given his favorable vote on the
amendment, should be a co-sponsor, he needs to hear it from you.

Steven S. Epstein

West Street Georgetown