REEFER SANITY VS. WHITE HOUSE PURITANS

The bard of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, once defined Puritanism as "the
haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy." He would have found
quite a few Puritans in his home state in recent days, trying to keep demon
weed away from the seriously ill.

Shrugging off their pressures, Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich
signed a bill Thursday that, although it does not quite legalize the
medicinal use of marijuana, does the next best thing. It reduces the
maximum penalty for possession from a year in state prison and a $1,000
fine to a $100 fine in cases of "medical necessity," such as to relieve
suffering from cancer treatment and other serious illnesses.

That's one small step for the governor and one giant leap toward reefer
sanity, a rational and compassionate national drug policy in which states
could make their own decisions about drugs without ideology-driven
interference from Washington.

Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Nevada and Maine
also have legalized medical marijuana. All but Hawaii did it by referendum.
Another 21 states have approved largely symbolic laws or resolutions
recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.

Watching his brother-in-law die of cancer two years ago helped shape
Ehrlich's view, he has said. As a congressman, he co-sponsored a bill that
would have freed states to make their own laws on the medicinal marijuana
issue.

"I think most people can discern a clear difference between legalizing
substances that wreck lives," Ehrlich was quoted as saying during a Capitol
Hill visit in April, "as opposed to a life situation where someone is doing
something because of severe pain."

But, not everyone does. Drug czar John P. Walters, the White House drug
policy coordinator, strongly opposed the measure and denounced the notion
of marijuana as "a proven, efficacious medicine" as making no more sense
than "an argument for medicinal crack."

Funny he should say that. Marijuana is listed along with heroin and LSD as
a "Schedule I" drug, the category for drugs with "no acceptable medical
benefits" under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Cocaine is listed in
Schedule II for drugs that have "a currently accepted medical use in
treatment in the United States."

Categorizing marijuana as more dangerous than cocaine is one of many
examples of how far our federal drug policy is removed from the real world.

Perhaps now Maryland can avoid bizarre cases like that of Kitty Tucker, a
lawyer I wrote about four years ago in the Washington suburb of Takoma
Park. When she and her husband had a dispute over their teen-age daughter's
dating, the youngster got even by telling police about the marijuana plants
that Tucker was growing in their basement for relief from her severe
migraines and chronic muscle pain disorder.

The charges eventually were dropped, but only after Tucker's husband lost
his federal job and the family was put through a legal and emotional wringer.

If states were left to make their own marijuana laws, we also might avoid
cases like that of Ed Rosenthal, who was convicted under federal law of
growing and distributing cannabis, even though he was licensed by the city
of Oakland to do so under California's medical marijuana statute.

The judge in his case prevented several attempts by Rosenthal's attorney to
inform the jury that Rosenthal's actions were legal under state law. After
his conviction, seven jurors took the extraordinary step of publicly
repudiating their own verdict and apologizing to Rosenthal.

A House bill would allow defendants from states with legalized medical
marijuana to use "medical necessity" as a defense against federal drug charges.

I wish the sponsors luck. The die-hard prohibitionists on the other side
recently introduced a bill to authorize the drug czar to use taxpayer money
in political campaigns, as long as it is "to oppose an attempt to legalize
the use" of any currently illegal drug.

Let's hope that bill dies a quick death. Those who want to keep medicine
away from the sick are entitled to promote their opinion. I shouldn't have
to subsidize their campaign.