MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE

The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government is fully within its
rights to override state laws and prosecute patients who use marijuana for
medical purposes. The question now is: Why does it bother?

Once upon a time, the idea of smoking pot to treat an illness may have
sounded like something out of a Cheech and Chong movie. But no one is
laughing anymore. Over the last two decades, a growing body of evidence has
vindicated the value of cannabis for a variety of serious conditions, with
minimal risk.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the federal National
Academy of Sciences, commissioned a thorough evaluation of all the data
available on the subject and found that "nausea, appetite loss, pain and
anxiety ... all can be mitigated by marijuana." The New England Journal of
Medicine supports allowing medical use of cannabis, arguing that "a federal
policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing
marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane."

After the Supreme Court ruling, John Walters, head of the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, waxed triumphant, asserting that
"science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is
safe or effective." He's misrepresenting the research--and he neglects to
mention that the federal government makes it extremely difficult for
scientists to do studies that might yield better data.

The public is open to a different approach. Ten states have passed laws
that effectively protect patients using pot for therapeutic needs,
according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Another 20 have measures on the
books endorsing medical marijuana. According to a 2002 Time/CNN poll, 80
percent of Americans favor the idea.

Yet the federal government has refused to budge--going so far as to send
federal agents to destroy plants grown by patients and their caregivers in
California, which has legalized medical marijuana. That's how Monday's
Supreme Court decision came about. But even as the court upheld the right
of the federal government to prosecute such cases, it made plain its doubts
about the wisdom of the policy.

Maybe this verdict will finally force Congress to recognize the urgent need
for change. Currently, the federal government classifies pot as a Schedule
I drug--a designation reserved for substances with serious potential for
abuse and no therapeutic value. Drugs of this kind may not be prescribed by
physicians. Marijuana's inclusion is absurd, considering that doctors are
allowed to prescribe morphine and cocaine.

Even the DEA's chief administrative law judge ruled in 1988 in favor of
reclassifying cannabis. "Marijuana in its natural form is one of the
saf-est therapeutically active substances known to man," he wrote. "It
would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to
stand between [patients] and the benefits of this substance." But the DEA
refused.

Some members of Congress have had enough. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.)
and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) plan to introduce a measure to forbid the
Justice Department from going after patients using pot in states where it
is permitted. That would be a good first step.

One president after another, and one drug czar after another, has insisted
on treating pot as intolerable for any reason. The policy is an
embarrassment based on misinformation and blind ideology. It's time
Congress demanded a change.