A THERAPEUTIC DECISION

Eight states from Maine to California authorize the use of marijuana for
medical purposes, including relief for victims of multiple sclerosis and
symptoms of AIDS. Technically, Connecticut permits doctors to prescribe
marijuana for the "treatment of glaucoma or the side effects of
chemotherapy," but none has dared do so.

That's because state policies contradict federal law, which classifies
marijuana as an illegal substance. This conflict has kept many doctors from
prescribing the drug for fear of being punished with the loss of
prescription privileges, which are controlled by the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration.

Mercifully, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it safer for doctors to give
patients beneficial advice about marijuana without penalty. The court has
let stand a Ninth Circuit appeals court ruling. Under the ruling, doctors
may not be investigated, threatened or punished by federal regulators for
recommending the drug.

This enlightened decision should send a message to the federal government
that it should not interfere with state laws on this subject. By separating
politics from medicine, the appeals court ruling implies that the decision
to use marijuana for medicinal purposes should be between doctor and patient.

Connecticut should reopen its debate on the subject. A measure authorizing
the use of marijuana for legitimate medical purposes died in the House last
session. The bill would have allowed patients, with their doctor's
sanction, to cultivate a limited number of plants.

It seems hypocritical to bar medical marijuana that can work better in some
cases than powerful prescription painkillers now prescribed by doctors to
alleviate suffering.