MEDICINAL MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION MERITS CONSIDERATION

While we were all heading back from Thanksgiving break, Angel Raich
was vaporizing some marijuana to bake in her zucchini bread before
catching a plane ride to Washington.

That's alright ... thanks to her doctor's consent and a 1996 Californian
medicinal marijuana initiative, she has the proper authorization.

Although Raich lives in Oakland, Calif., with two children, she faces
many debilitating disorders that have forced her to try many
pharmaceutical drugs without any luck.

Marijuana now soothes her brain tumor, seizure disorder and
excruciating back pain. She also has severe post-traumatic stress
disorder from being abused as a child and from severe non-epileptic
seizures.

Claiming she never gets high on her supply; her pain should not raise
any controversial concern. Why should it? The Drug Free America
Foundation's argument against medicinal marijuana holds that if the
federal government allows Raich's type of behavior, this will
undermine all of the discouragement its done against illicit drugs.

Call me an optimist, but I think people can distinguish the difference
between medicinal marijuana and the other abusive drugs that are out
there.

However, Congress and drug-free foundations view marijuana as highly
addictive and abusive. Organizations of such a fidgety demeanor might
as well tell us they're trying to brainwash us because marijuana is
not a drug that should raise any concern. In 1970 our government all
of a sudden turned its focus to weed and banned it for good. A year
afterward, our government called marijuana an "age-old" treatment that
has no place in modern medicine.

The federal government upheld the 9th U.S. Circuit Court's decision,
in which judges voted 2-1, relating to medicinal marijuana users. The
decision made a stretch on their commerce clause claim that accused
many medicinal marijuana users of taking part in dealing cannabis
inside state lines for profit.

This has to be one of the poorest decisions made by our federal
government. But the rash decisions don't stop there. Both Raich and
her friend Diane Monson had their houses raided by local authorities.
The marijuana the two were growing (which is legal in California when
used for medical purposes) was taken away, but no charges were pressed.

Her Supreme Court hearing took place on Monday and advocates of
medicinal marijuana definitely have a case. The case, known as
Ashcroft v. Raich, has a shady vibe. In addition to medicinal
marijuana use conflicting with the values of our conservative
government, this case raises a call for a different type of
federalism, whatever the outcome. If Raich is successful, the power
the states have in the U.S. will largely increase.

A drastic change in federalism will be the appropriate move. Our
central leadership has gained too much control and persuasive power
when dealing with states.

The possible endorsing of Raich's behavior by Supreme Court justices
has many consequences. The lawsuits heard by the justices carry heavy
weight and are credible. Raich and the other medicinal marijuana users
are protected by the 9th and 10th amendments, which in regards to this
case, allow the state the power to handle laws dealing with
fundamental liberty interests.

Californians have already defined medicinal marijuana through 1998's
Proposition 215 as being exempt from illegal interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court needs to respect California's law and its citizens'
decision to allow medicinal marijuana. Transferring some power to the
states has been necessary for some time.