POT AS MEDICINE: AN ODD DECISION

Can the cultivation and use of marijuana for noncommercial purposes solely
within one state be construed as "interstate commerce?" Six members of the
U.S. Supreme Court say yes. The other three say -- in effect -- that's
nuts. We agree with the dissenters.

So it is in the unpredictable world of the Supreme Court. Just when voting
patterns appear to be well-established, the voting blocs can shift suddenly.

That's what happened in the "medical marijuana" decision this week.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the closest thing to Siamese
twins in their judicial views since the early days of "Minnesota Twins"
justices Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun, were suddenly split asunder.
Scalia sided with the majority that federal law trumped anything that the
state legislature of California enacted on the subject. On the other side,
Scalia found himself in the company of moderate wingers John Paul Stevens,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. The usual swing
voters, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, also were split, with
O'Connor writing a strong dissent.

O'Connor noted that the decision represented a strong deviation from a
series of decisions in recent years giving more deference to the states in
the ongoing struggle to delineate states' rights vs. those of Congress. She
was joined only by Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Whatever the reasoning, the decision leaves open the possibility that
cancer patients and others using cannabis for medicinal purposes -- and
those who cultivate it for those patients -- could be prosecuted under
federal drug laws. Such prosecutions have been rare, but even the
possibility of it happening may be enough to drive the practice underground
again. California is one of 11 states in the Far West and New England that
have passed medicinal-marijuana laws. (Florida has never given the idea
serious consideration.)

It's also possible that Congress might take action, but any loosening of
the federal drug law is unlikely. What might be possible is the passage of
an amendment to the federal budget prohibiting the use of federal money for
enforcing the law in medicinal-marijuana cases. Such a move is likely to be
opposed by the Bush administration, which was the victor in the Supreme
Court decision. Federal drug officials dispute that marijuana has any
medicinal benefits -- a view that many patients strongly oppose.

Other legal challenges to federal enforcement are in the works. How the
Supreme Court eventually will rule is anybody's guess. The latest decision
only muddied the water.