STATES' RIGHTS

For those on both sides of the medicinal pot debate, there seems to be
little concern, or even understanding, of the greater constitutional issue.
If asked, I doubt that more than a small few would even know what the 10th
Amendment says, or why it matters. Lacking the promise of the Bill of
Rights, our founding fathers would have been unable to ratify the
Constitution, were not the individual states guaranteed protection from the
intrusion of an overly strong central government.

Facts: We have a state law permitting pot smoking for medical purposes. We
have a U.S. attorney general who has chosen not to support the will of this
state's voters, or to defend the 10th Amendment. The feds have for decades
chipped away at the sovereignty of states, which barely raise a whimper
lest the purse strings be cut.

Cancer patients unable to swallow pills containing THC (pot's active
ingredient) need something to increase their suppressed appetite. Answer?
Government controlled production of inhaled (not smoked) THC prescribed by
MDs. Just like for asthma patients.

And, no, I didn't vote for Proposition 215. Its vague, poorly worded
provisions led us where we are today.

- - John W. Schuff, Rancho Cordova