SILENCING PHYSICIANS

Bush Administration Unwisely Interferes in Doctor-Patient Relationships

The Bush administration is making an ill-conceived re-entry into the debate
over the medical use of marijuana, and Nevadans may well suffer the
consequences. Last week, the administration appealed a decision by the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which prevented the government from
punishing, or even investigating, physicians in California who advised
seriously ill patients that medicinal marijuana may be a legitimate
treatment for debilitating illness.

Recall that voters in California, Nevada and seven other states amended
their constitutions to permit the medical use of marijuana. And while the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that there's no "medical exception"
to federal drug laws enabling the state to distribute marijuana to sick
people -- even if a voter initiative OK'd the practice -- the decision did
not explicitly prohibit the possession and use of the drug for medical
purposes.

Last week, the White House asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th
Circuit's decision. The case was brought by patients in California, who
challenged a Clinton administration policy that threatened to revoke the
medical licenses of any physicians who recommended "Schedule I" drugs
(including marijuana) to patients as treatment.

The patients charged that this policy violated the First Amendment
free-speech rights of doctors and patients, and a trial court agreed. On
appeal, the 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed the ruling.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is defending the misguided policy of
its predecessors, arguing that the 9th Circuit's ruling prevents drug
enforcement officers from "protecting the public."

Nonsense. As the trial judge ruled, providing a patient with an illegal
substance may well violate the law; merely discussing the possibility does not.

Overturning the 9th Circuit's decision would also damage doctor-patient
relationships in every state that allows medical marijuana, including
Nevada. "This case is about doctors providing honest and accurate medical
advice to patients and the government wanting to censor that advice and
leave patients to the Internet, their friends and back alley information in
order to make medical decisions," Graham Boyd, an ACLU attorney who's
representing patients, told The Associated Press.

Mr. Boyd is right. The high court should refuse to hear the case.