REEFER MADNESS

Federal Addiction to Power a Greater Danger Than State Medical
Marijuana Laws

We're disappointed that the U.S. House of Representatives failed on
Wednesday to protect users of medicinal marijuana from the long arm of
the Bush administration's Justice Department, which has vowed to keep
punishing caregivers that prescribe it, even when such use is
permitted by state law. This action also undermines the freedom of
states to determine for themselves whether such uses are
appropriate.

By 268-148, the House rejected a measure that would have barred the
federal government from meddling in state medical marijuana laws --
leaving nine states that have approved them, including Colorado,
suspended in a sort of legal limbo. It also means that citizens whose
suffering could be alleviated with the help of cannabis will continue
living under a cloud of uncertainty and fear, in order to satisfy the
federal government's own, far more dangerous addiction to control and
power, justified by an often irrational anti-drug crusade.

The U.S. Supreme Court next fall will take up the constitutionality of
state medical marijuana laws. But Congress could have made the issue
moot, expressing solidarity with popular opinion and the principles of
federalism, by passing the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Co-sponsored
by California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative Republican, and
New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat, the amendment would have
stipulated that no funds appropriated to the Department of Justice be
used to prevent certain states "from implementing state laws
authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those states."

This was exactly the right way to handle this issue. Congress, and
specifically the House of Representatives, is constitutionally
authorized to control the federal purse strings, and the place to set
policy by directing how funds can or cannot be spent. In our
federalist system of government, health, safety and medical
scope-of-practice decisions have traditionally been made at the state
level. Particularly when there are no interstate commerce
implications, the national government has only limited authority to
interfere in such decisions.

No medical marijuana laws have been challenged on the claim that
federal law holds supremacy in this field. None of those opposing such
laws has wanted to take the risk of making this argument in court. But
the Drug Enforcement Administration, until recently enjoined by
federal courts, did undertake an aggressive campaign of arresting and
trying medical marijuana users under federal law, often in
circumstances in which defendants were prevented from mentioning in
court that they were medical patients acting in compliance with state
law. That effort to nullify state laws approved by the voters was an
egregious abuse of federal power.

The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment should have been attractive both to
conservatives and populists, because it upholds federalism and opposes
the misuse of federal power, while reflecting polls showing that 75-80
percent of the American people, across party lines, support the
medical use of marijuana.

Rep. Joel Hefley voted against the measure, siding with those who
argue that permitting the use of medical marijuana runs contrary to
other federal anti-drug efforts. But we've just never bought the
argument that pot use will suddenly skyrocket simply because states
elect to allow the medicinal use of marijuana under a limited set of
circumstances.

There simply seems to be no constituency in this country -- beyond a
few DEA officials and hidebound politicians -- for jailing cancer,
multiple sclerosis, AIDS and other patients for using a substance that
relieves their suffering. It's a shame that a majority in Congress
remain behind the curve, in terms of both science and public opinion,
on this issue.