REEFER MADNESS

Despite Will of Nevada Voters, Silver State Congressman Won't Sanction
Medical Marijuana

To the editor:

In response to your recent editorial, "Mr. Gibbons v. Constitution,"
on the vote in the U.S. House regarding medical marijuana:

The conflict between states' rights and federal rights is one that has
been fought throughout our history. My position has been and remains
to guard the rights of states against federal incursions into those
areas that are properly the jurisdiction of the states.

I also respect our U.S. Constitution, which provides for the supremacy
of the federal government in certain areas. In this situation, the
Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 8 lists among the various
powers of Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. As an
exercise of this power, the federal government enacted the 1970
Controlled Substances Act because "the improper use of controlled
substances has a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and
general welfare of the American people [and] a major portion of the
traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign
commerce." My recent vote to allow the federal government to continue
enforcing the 1970 law upheld my constitutional duty as a congressman
to support the laws of our country.

Marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, defined in federal law as
having "a high potential for abuse and no currently acceptable medical
use." Over the past few years, some have taken the position that
marijuana has a medicinal value and, therefore, should be legalized.
People in states such as Nevada have even voted to legalize the use of
marijuana for medical purposes. Yet these referendums do not change
the federal law.

I strongly believe that if a federal law is wrong, it should be
changed. But a federal law cannot be changed through a state
referendum. That is not the process specified in the U.S.
Constitution.

The process required to change the 1970 listing of marijuana as a
controlled substance is described on the DEA Web site: "Proceedings to
add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may
be initiated by the DEA, the Department of Health and Human Services,
or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer
of a drug, a medical society ... a public interest group ... or an
individual citizen." To date, none of these processes has changed the
classification of marijuana.

Why? Because the scientific community remains quite divided as to
marijuana's health effects. Research has found, however, that:
Marijuana smoke contains 400 chemicals and 50 percent to 70 percent
more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana smokers
have a heightened risk of lung infection. Long-term use of marijuana
may increase the risk of chronic cough, bronchitis and emphysema, as
well as cancer of the head, neck and lungs.

Research, however, has not conclusively found whether marijuana truly
has any positive health effects. A component of marijuana -- THC --
has been approved in pill form by the FDA as Marinol and the doctors
can prescribe this drug. Yet scientific evidence has not proven that
smoked marijuana qualifies as medicine and that a change to current
federal law is needed. Marijuana, whatever its value, is intoxicating,
and it is no surprise that patients will report relief of their
symptoms after smoking it. However, as Dr. Andrea Barthwell, a medical
doctor with more than 20 years of experience, noted: "There is a
difference between feeling better and actually getting better. It is
the job of modern medicine to establish this distinction."

We must remember the great rule of medicine: First, do no harm. Anyone
proposing to make marijuana more freely available is violating that
rule, and anyone who justifies such a policy as a public health
measure is practicing bad medicine.

Should the scientific community ever come to a conclusive agreement
that smoking marijuana is effective to treat cancer, AIDS, glaucoma or
another disease, the federal law can and should be adjusted to allow
for the prescription of it. Until that occurs, the federal law remains
in effect, and Congress has the duty to allow funds to be spent to
enforce the law.

As a congressman, I have a duty to uphold the law and cannot support
efforts to help people obtain and use illegal drugs. And until federal
law changes, marijuana remains an illegal drug.

Rep. JIM GIBBONS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

The writer, a Republican, represents Nevada's 2nd Congressional
District.