LET COURT END HARASMENT OF SICK PEOPLE

Should a sick, possibly terminally ill, person be allowed to use
marijuana to treat her pain? That is a question now before the U.S.
Supreme Court. Two California women, one with a brain tumor, have
filed suit to get back the marijuana seized from them by federal
agents. California permits the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Marijuana has been found to be a useful drug for some patients with
severe ailments (like cancer) who may be undergoing harsh treatment
(like chemotherapy). This evidence of situational effectiveness
prompted voters in 11 states (Arizona included) to approve the use of
marijuana if prescribed by a doctor. This puts these states at odds
with federal law, which strictly prohibits the use of marijuana for
any purpose.

Federal law prohibits the use of marijuana under the premise that
using it could lead to drug addiction and a life of crime. There
certainly is a wealth of statistical data linking the use of outlawed
substances and criminal activity. There are over 700,000 arrests a
year for marijuana infractions. However, this data is less persuasive
as an argument for prohibition than it first appears. Outlawing the
substances makes their mere possession a crime. To then point to this
"crime" as evidence of the pernicious effects of marijuana is circular
reasoning.

What about violence that accompanies "turf" battles between rival
vendors of illicit substances? Well, these turf battles wouldn't occur
if the substances weren't illegal. We don't, after all, observe
shoot-outs between Osco and Walgreen's to determine who will sell
drugs that are legal.

What about the stealing drug addicts engage in to support their
habits? Well, the stealing is driven by the illegality that makes
prices so high. People are addicted to tobacco and alcohol, but few
need resort to robbery to support these addictions because the price
of these legal substances is relatively low.

The drug warriors' contention that marijuana use leads to crime is not
well-supported by the evidence. An even more plausible case can be
made that 'laws' against marijuana are the cause of the crimes.

Given the weakness of the general case for prohibiting marijuana use,
the feds' action against the medical use of marijuana seems cruel.
People ravaged by disease are not a threat to society. There is no
legitimate rationale for police to harass these people and confiscate
what doctors have prescribed as their medicine.

Yet, there is little cause for optimism as the case goes to the
Supreme Court. Justice Souter expressed concern that medical marijuana
laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick. Ten percent of
the population (nearly 30 million people) use illegal drugs, he says.
How will we stop these recreational users from taking advantage of the
permitted medical use?

Justice Breyer observed that 100,000 sick people in California use
medical marijuana. He thinks that everyone caught with the substance
will claim his is for medicinal purposes and doctors' prescriptions
will be sold on the "black market." It will be, he says, a "mess." One
would hope that Breyer's acknowledgment that 100,000 sick people
depend on medical marijuana might persuade him that perhaps doctors
might know what they're doing when they prescribe it.

The real mess, though, comes from the notion that government knows
best. Marijuana, like many things, has both good and bad attributes.
Some people will misuse it and cause harm--mostly to themselves. But
others may need it to help them cope with devastating illnesses. It
would be inhumane for the government to take it away from them.