A WELCOME RULING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Since the Supreme Court ruled without comment, court observers can
only guess at the reasoning behind the justices' surprising decision
last week permitting the medical use of marijuana. The court must have
been impressed, however, by the arguments of both liberal and
conservative judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose
ruling a year ago the high court has now upheld. The appeals judges in
San Francisco endorsed "principles of federalism" that the current
Supreme Court generally respects, and they declared that the federal
government butting into doctor-patient communications violates
constitutional rights of free speech.

The ruling is a victory not just for speech and privacy but for the
best kinds of states' rights -- i.e., those that advance the cause of
freedom and not the cause of oppression or entrenched power. Most
importantly, the decision empowers physicians to proceed at no legal
risk to themselves or their patients with a vital part of their
calling, the alleviation of suffering.

Sadly, the court ruling was slow in coming. It was the Clinton
administration in 1996 that reacted to a California referendum
approving doctor-prescribed marijuana for pain-ridden cancer and AIDS
patients by threatening physicians with the loss of their federal
licenses to prescribe drugs. The Bush administration has been even
more aggressive, raiding clinics and distribution centers, and
prosecuting growers. The reasoning of both administrations was that
marijuana is illegal, period, and tough federal laws supersede more
lenient state regulations.

This absurd rigidity led to confusion in the 10 states -- most of them
out west; Maine is the closest -- that enacted medical-marijuana laws
legislatively or by initiative. It also caused needless suffering
among patients for whom other painkillers worked much less effectively
than marijuana, which can also prolong life in some patients. Many of
those afflicted chose to live -- and often die -- in great pain rather
than risk federal prosecution of themselves or their physicians.
Judith Cushner, 58, who suffers from breast and uterine cancer, told
The New York Times, "There are people who would be alive today if they
had felt comfortable discussing it with their physicians. It took
seven years to get this far. Cancer moves a lot faster than that."

The court's decision now makes it more likely that other states will
enact medical-marijuana laws. In removing some of the stigma of
cannabis, the ruling might also hasten the decriminalization of
marijuana, which when used as a recreational drug is generally less
dangerous than alcohol. The Bush administration, which implored the
Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit ruling, will be no help in
bringing rationality to the issue.

Richard Meyer, a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration
in San Francisco, reacted to the ruling by saying, "Marijuana is still
an illegal drug. We will continue doing our job." Mr. Meyer should be
reminded that part of the DEA's job now is to stay out of law-abiding
doctors' offices.