WHERE IS THE COMPASSION

NOW it's up to Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld
federal drug laws that permit prosecution of marijuana use for medical
purposes. The court said the authority was squarely within Congress'
power to grant.

If that's the case, it's up to Congress to change the application of
the federal drug law to make exceptions for medical marijuana.

The House will soon vote on an appropriations amendment that would
prohibit the Justice Department from spending money on drug
enforcement when the targets are patients using and growing marijuana
to ease suffering from a variety of painful conditions. A similar
amendment failed last year despite growing bipartisan support.

It ought to pass this time as a humane gesture at least. Eleven states
have recognized the relief cannabis brings to patients with dire
medical needs that accompany diagnoses from AIDS to cancer to a host
of debilitating syndromes. For some chronically or terminally ill
patients, marijuana is the godsend that gets them through the day.

The Supreme Court's ruling will not invalidate those state laws but
will deny them the cover of immunity from enforcement of federal drug
laws.

Interestingly, during his 2000 campaign candidate George Bush said
medical marijuana use was an issue best left to the states.

But as President Bush it's a different story. His administration has
raided and prosecuted medical marijuana suppliers in California, and
its drug czar, John Walters, dismisses the "pro-drug politics that are
being promoted in America under the guise of medicine."

How misguided. Angel Raich of Oakland, one of two northern California
women whose challenge to the federal drug law wound up before the high
court, has an inoperable brain tumor and other medical problems. Her
co-plaintiff, Diane Monson, suffers from severe back spasms. Their
doctors recommended marijuana for their pain.

Only after the Monson property was raided and federal agents seized
six marijuana plants in 2002 did she join Ms. Raich in a civil suit
claiming immunity from federal enforcement. Since 1996, California law
has protected patients from state prosecution if they receive
marijuana with the recommendation of their physician.

A federal appeals court ruling had shielded the medical marijuana
statute from the reach of federal drug enforcement until the Supreme
Court sided with the overriding authority of the federal government.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling "shows the
vast philosophical differences between the federal government and
Californians on the rights of patients to have access to the medicine
they need to survive and lead healthier lives."

The White House would like to believe the Supreme Court ruling "marks
the end of medical marijuana as a political issue." It does not. The
states' that have made an exception to marijuana use for sick and
dying patients believe they should be free to set their own laws.

The lobbying efforts have begun on Capitol Hill to cut off funding for
enforcement of federal drug laws against medical marijuana in states
where it is legal. The day of arresting patients for using medical
marijuana in compliance with state medical laws should be long gone.

The "war on drugs" wasn't meant to be waged against the sick and
dying. Others, like those involved in serious drug trafficking, pose
much more of a threat to society.