COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES ON THE HIGH COURT

The Rehnquist Court's tilt toward states' rights has occasioned much
gnashing of teeth among liberals and others who fear a serious erosion of
federal authority. But last week the federalism revolution produced
another, unaccustomed sound: cheers from advocates of medical marijuana,
whose cause received a substantial boost when the court refused even to
consider rescuing the federal policy of pursuing California doctors who
advise their patients on using marijuana under the terms of the state's
Compassionate Use Act.

The California law, adopted by voters in 1996, is part of a vigorous
grass-roots revolt against the "Reefer Madness" message emanating from
Washington, asserting that marijuana threatens the nation's very civic
fabric. Of the nine Western states within the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seven now authorize marijuana use with a
doctor's approval. Having failed to deter the voters, it was the Clinton
administration that first decided to go after the doctors.

The justices offered no comment in denying the appeal of the Ninth
Circuit's ruling, which held that threatening doctors' federal drug
licenses for what they say to their patients within the framework of state
law violates both the First Amendment and the principles of federalism that
the Supreme Court takes so seriously.

But sometimes the court's silence speaks volumes. The justices nearly
always defer to a request to review a decision striking down a federal
policy, especially a super-heated petition like this one, which pushed
every button from public health to the separation of powers.

So the unmistakable inference is that the court concluded that the Ninth
Circuit got this one right.

But the Drug Enforcement Administration has vowed to keep fighting the evil
weed. This story is not over.