DRUG WARS

As the U.S. Supreme Court ends its 2002-03 term with important
decisions involving the extent of government power, it has begun
formulating next fall's docket. On Monday, the justices announced they
will hear one case with particularly interesting ramifications for
individual freedom in states -- including Nevada -- that have
legalized medical marijuana.

Three years ago, the court ruled that California medical marijuana
clubs could not use "medical necessity" as a defense to prosecution
for distributing the drug in conflict with federal laws. But the
ruling was narrow -- and Justice Clarence Thomas, who penned the
majority decision, admitted the decision left several questions
unanswered, including whether the federal government could interfere
with the right of states to make their own marijuana laws.

Now the court, in a California case, has agreed to take on that
issue.

Despite the fact that voters in almost a dozen states have approved
the legalization of medical marijuana, the federal drug warriors
continue to spit on such exercises of democracy.

Two years ago, two California residents -- who as required under state
law had obtained the proper prescription to legally use marijuana for
medicinal purposes -- sued Attorney General John Aschcroft arguing
that continued harassment by federal agents of those supplying the
drug threatened to dry up their supply. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals followed with an injunction against the Justice Department
enjoining it from prosecuting the women or their suppliers.

The appeals court ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act
does not apply to patients whose doctors recommend the drug as long as
the marijuana is not sold or transported across state lines.

This case will be argued before the high court next fall and provides
the justices with an opportunity to reinforce the notion that in a
representative democracy citizens have a right to go the polls and
change laws with which they disagree. Let's hope they take it.