WASHINGTON SHOULDN'T USE LICENSING TO MUZZLE DOCTORS

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld free speech rights and the principles of
federalism by refusing to let the government punish doctors for recommending
medicinal marijuana use.

Regardless of federal policy on marijuana, there is evidence that the drug
has medicinal benefits, and many doctors believe it can help their patients,
particularly those suffering the side effects of cancer treatments.

Political thought in Washington should not be allowed to hamper the medical
advice given by a doctor in California. Unless the treatment is medically
unacceptable, physicians should be able to give their patients their best
advice, even if it conflicts with the government line.

In fact, that is why the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech: so
people are free to contradict the government.

Nine states have approved medicinal marijuana use. But the federal
government opposes this use, and Washington seeks to thwart state laws
legalizing it.

That's why, after California approved medicinal marijuana use in 1996, the
Clinton administration instituted a policy that threatened to take away
prescription authority from any doctor who recommended marijuana use to a
patient. States license physicians, but the Drug Enforcement Administration
issues licenses for prescribing medicine.

A federal appeals court overturned the policy, correctly ruling that it
violated the free speech rights of doctors. The court also found that the
policy violated the principles of federalism by seeking to negate state
laws.

But the Bush administration sought to keep the Clinton policy and appealed
to the Supreme Court. This week, that court let the appeals court ruling
stand.

Washington should now back away from imposing its will on states that want
to allow medicinal use of marijuana.

States should be allowed to make this decision for themselves. Not all state
laws must agree with the sentiment in Washington. And federal officials
should get over the persistent idea that the federal government serves as a
supervisor over the states.

Federal regulators also should be chastised by the free speech portion of
the ruling. They should not be able to use any hold they have over citizens
- -- licensing or taxation -- to keep them from speaking their minds.