SUPREMES WERE RIGHT ON MARIJUANA ISSUE

Just for the record, and despite what you may hear from right-wing talk
radio, marijuana, medical or otherwise, has not been suddenly legalized by
the Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, however, the Supremes did decline to hear a challenge to a
ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was the government's
threat to yank the federal permits doctors need to prescribe any controlled
substance if the doctor even discussed the merits of using marijuana in
treating the side effects of chemotherapy or the wasting effects of AIDS.

First, you need to know a little something about marijuana. It does amazing
things to the appetite. A person who's smoked a few joints can find a plate
of cold Spaghetti-O's appealing. Or so I've heard.

So if you're down to 85 pounds because your chemo is making you sick (like
a lady named Judith Cushner who's a plaintiff in the lawsuit) or if AIDS is
making you too nauseous to eat so that you risk starving to death (like
Plaintiff Keith Vines who is, ironically enough, an assistant district
attorney in San Francisco), then an appetite stimulant and nausea inhibitor
might be just what the doctor ordered. Problem is, nature's most effective
appetite stimulant is illegal.

So, in 1996, the people of California voted in Proposition 215, which made
it legal for patients to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when a
doctor recommends it. Arizona passed a similar law by referendum. The
Clinton administration, that pack of pot-smoking liberals, came down on
that one like a ton of bricks. First off, they said, anyone growing or
distributing marijuana would be prosecuted, no matter what those stupid
voters of California or Arizona think. That part of the policy was upheld
by the Supreme Court.

Then, however, they went further and banned doctors from even discussing
the matter with their patients. "A doctor's action in recommending or
prescribing Schedule I controlled substances is not consistent with the
public interest," the policy said. A joint letter from a veritable alphabet
soup of agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and for some bizarre reason, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, warned that doctors who violate the policy "risk
revocation of their DEA prescription authority."

Note that the communication involved doesn't even have to rise to the level
of writing a prescription.a statement that "hey, I hear marijuana can help
you with that" would risk the doctor getting his DEA ticket pulled.

Since the DEA license is necessary to prescribe a whole raft of useful and
legal drugs, this was the guvmint basically threatening to put docs out of
business for not toeing the party line in the debate on the usefulness of
marijuana as a treatment. Not the Clinton Administration's finest hour,
I'll admit.

The Bushistas, to no one's great surprise, continued the policy when they
took over. So Cushner, Vines, and AIDS pioneer Dr. Marcus Conant took the
government to court and won. The 9th Circuit ruled that threatening doctors
if they provided any medical opinion other than "marijuana is bad, bad,
bad" was a violation of the First Amendment's right of free speech. The
government appealed to the Supreme Court, who did - nothing. They refused
to consider the appeal.

The media and the White House, predictably, made it sounds as if weed was
going to start being sold over the counter in Eckerd's along with the
Preparation H. "Supreme Court clears the way for Medical Pot" blared the AP
headline. "We oppose the legalization of marijuana," a White House
spokesman said. Which was fine, except that it really had little to do with
the true import of the decision.

This was more - much more - than a drug issue. There's a lot of debate,
both medical and political, about the medical usefulness or lack of
usefulness of marijuana. Stifling that debate by trying to dictate
doctor-patient communication isn't going to make the issue go away. As the
9th Circuit pointed out, a doctor's expression of opinion on the "pro" side
of the issue isn't aiding and abetting a felony.

It doesn't mean that the patient is going to rush down to the corner and
buy a dime bag or whatever they're selling the stuff in these days. The
patient may rush out and join one of the organizations lobbying for a
change in our drug policy. He may go home and cry over the unfairness of it
all. He may write a letter to the editor. But at least he was able to
discuss it with his doctor, without the fear that the doctor may not be
there next week. The Supremes made the right decision here.