FUTURE HAZY FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Angel Raich, 39, of Oakland, Calif., is suffering from a brain tumor.
In accordance with California's Compassionate Use Act, which voters
approved in 1996, her doctor prescribed medical marijuana to relieve
her intense pain.

It was "the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that
works," said Dr. Frank Lucido, her physician.

Diana Monson, 47, of Oroville, Calif., also uses marijuana after her
doctor recommended it to ease excruciating back spasms.

Monson smokes it; Raich puts it in a vaporizer and inhales the
fumes.

A few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments by attorneys
representing the women. The court's ruling, which will not be handed
down for months, will affect similar patients in the 10 states that
permit doctors to prescribe medical marijuana.

The Bush administration (like the Clinton administration before it)
supports the federal law banning marijuana nationwide. The Bush
administration insists it has no medical value and if doctors are
allowed to prescribe it, that sets a bad example in the war on drugs.

Federal agents seized the California patients' marijuana, but the
women challenged the legality of the seizure.

Last December the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in
San Francisco, known for its broad-minded rulings, called the federal
seizure illegal because it violated California's Compassionate Use
Act.

The appeals court said federalism and specifically states' rights were
being trampled. The court said Congress did not have the
constitutional power to run roughshod over medical marijuana laws
enacted by California and the nine other states.

The Bush administration appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

Unfortunately, the justices did not appear impressed recently by the
states-rights' argument. Several justices cited legal precedents
allowing federal law to override state law.

California's marijuana law had been challenged on different grounds in
2001. Then, the Supreme Court ruled that clubs distributing medical
marijuana in California violated federal law.

The ruling enabled the feds to raid marijuana suppliers and threaten
to yank the license of doctors who prescribed the drug for sick patients.

The pity, of course, is that medical marijuana has become hopelessly
entangled with politics.

Both former President Clinton ("I did not inhale") and President Bush
(who refuses to say whether he ever smoked pot in college or later)
are afraid they'll be perceived as soft on drugs if they endorse its
medical use.

That same narrow-mindedness prevails in Congress. How would voters
react if, say, the lawmaker is portrayed as one who endorsed "pot,"
even for medical use.

The American Medical Association also has been obdurate. It refuses to
nod approval to medical marijuana even though a 1990 Harvard study
found that two-thirds of oncologists surveyed said marijuana was
useful in reducing nausea caused by chemotherapy.

And the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1997 endorsed a
doctor's right to prescribe medical marijuana. "If marijuana relieves
the suffering even for one person, then why not use it?" the journal
editorialized.

A resounding majority of Americans agree, according to polls.
Respondents thought doctors should have the right to prescribe
marijuana if it relieves suffering.

The Canadian government, which is often more enlightened than ours,
legalized medical marijuana three years ago. Unlike the United States,
Canada did not wait for 100 percent scientific proof about its
effectiveness. It relied instead on some medical studies and anecdotal
surveys.

The law permits Canadian doctors to prescribe marijuana for patients
who are terminally ill or suffering from excruciating pain.

Many Americans do not know that Washington is two-faced about medical
marijuana. In the 1970s, it launched a pilot program allowing some
Americans to use taxpayer-funded marijuana for "compassionate use."

The program is still operative, though Washington has timidly cut back
on it. Fewer than 10 patients in America are permitted to use medical
marijuana to relieve pain.

The tobacco is grown at a research institute in Mississippi, shipped
to Raleigh to be rolled into cigarettes and mailed to medical centers
in America where the patients pick up their supply. If it's
permissible for them, then why not the rest of us?

Based on the justices' reaction to verbal arguments, it is unlikely
the Supreme Court will approve the California law letting doctors
prescribe marijuana for compassionate use. Congress, however, could do
so.

That prospect is so remote as to be nonexistent. Politics will
prevail.

Yet who among us would not want our doctor to prescribe marijuana if
the drug relieved indescribable pain?