MARIJUANA MANDATES

Don't Leave Regulations to Whims of Ideology

Columnist Collin Levey's perspective on Ashcroft v. Raich, the
medical-marijuana case now facing the Supreme Court, is certainly unique
("High court's the wrong joint for medical-marijuana fight," Dec. 3).
Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense.

Levey gets most of it right. She argues that the place for this battle is
within the states, and she appears to recognize that the most important
issue in the case is not one of policy but one of federalism. (Indeed, as a
number of conservative columnists have pointed out, this case represents an
ideal opportunity for conservative jurists on the court to remind their
liberal counterparts that federalism is good for all.)

In the end, however, Levey's train goes off the tracks. Faced with the
portentous implications of a verdict either way, she promptly asks the
court to butt out. Prosecutorial discretion, she argues, should be
sufficient to protect patients such as Angel Raich.

That's an unlikely proposition, and it leaves patients entirely vulnerable
to the whims of ideology. Words on the page of a prosecution manual
notwithstanding, both the Clinton and Bush Justice Departments have gone
after patients with considerable zeal - not with prosecution in most cases,
but certainly with civil forfeiture and other forms of intimidation. They
will not stop unless forced.

Ethan Straffin, Palo Alto, Calif.