DRUG REGULATION MUST REMAIN FEDERAL

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments about the status of
medical marijuana use in the United States. Currently, 11 different
states have approved laws that allow for the use of marijuana with a
licensed doctor's approval, despite federal code prohibiting its
production or distribution. Yesterday's case, Ashcroft v. Raich,
specifically questions federal jurisdiction over medical marijuana use
in light of the government's claim to govern interstate trade. The
case won the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' favor by arguing that the
central government has no claim to oversee the use of the drugs being
used if they are not sold or passed over state lines.

While the debate concerning the validity of marijuana as a medical
treatment continues, and quite possibly contains valid arguments in
favor of the drug's use, we must not jeopardize the safety and
standards of the drug industry by undermining federal oversight of
medicinal and illicit drugs. A ruling in favor of the state will
contradict the long-established precedent of federal jurisdiction over
food and drugs across the United States.

Specifically, the Food and Drug Administration governs the use of
drugs from a centralized and authoritative position in the central
government. It enjoys national jurisdiction, and generally has well
served the country through research, experimentation and regulation.
Recent developments concerning certain painkillers are a prime example
of how the FDA can quite efficiently administer regulations and
consumer safety decisions.

Currently, the FDA has not approved general marijuana for medical use,
although derivatives are approved for consumption through the mouth.
Furthermore, marijuana does not enjoy the approval of the Health
Department, and remains a Schedule I drug according to the Drug
Enforcement Agency.

If the Supreme Court should uphold the state laws allowing for medical
use of general marijuana, the decision will set precedence for a state
to oversee drug use, and severely undermine the FDA's authority.

The nation benefits greatly from a centralized food and drug policy.
Primarily, Washington provides the resources and funding for proper
and full research that states simply could not raise. The individual
states have nowhere near the tax and revenue capacity of the federal
government, and could not individually provide for the same quality of
service as the FDA because the costs of pharmaceutical and medical
research are prohibitive. Furthermore, centralized drug policy control
prevents dangerous discrepancies between state laws, which have
serious safety and interstate trade implications. Strict retention of
drug oversight by the federal government guarantees policy validity
and efficiency while best protecting consumer safety.

If the Supreme Court wishes to be sensible about this issue, it will
not support medical marijuana use as currently dictated by some
states. However, the general support as demonstrated by 11 of our
nation's states should be of particular concern to national
legislators and the departments within the government's executive
branch. There is obviously a certain amount of popular support for
these initiatives. The FDA and similar government bodies therefore
have a very clear mandate for in-depth and thorough exploration of all
aspects of marijuana use. Perhaps after sufficient research and
questioning a definitive and conclusive answer could be offered to the
American public, finally ending the ceaseless debate over marijuana's
presence in medicine and society.