STATE'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROPOSITION DOESN'T TRUMP FEDERAL DRUG REGULATIONS

FEDERAL agents acted appropriately when they raided a marijuana farm in
Santa Cruz and arrested its owners. Under federal law, they had no choice
but to apprehend those who were violating the rules as established by
Congress and the courts. To do otherwise would be to undermine a complex
political arrangement that has been in place in the United States for more
than 200 years.

The "medical'' marijuana issue is not about helping the ill or even
protecting property rights, valuable concepts though they are. It is about
federalism.

Since the earliest days of the republic, Congress has staked out areas
where its actions would prevail over all Americans. Its power is hardly
omniscient or without limitations. In fact, the framers of the Constitution
painstakingly established various policy areas that would be set aside for
the federal government to manage, with the remainder left to the states.

Wise as they were, the framers didn't cover everything. How could they
anticipate nuclear energy, telecommunications, missiles or even something
like marijuana? They couldn't. But the Constitution and early tradition
provided that federal courts would sort out uncertainties, especially as
they pertained to clashes between the states and the federal government. If
that didn't work, the Constitution included a method for incorporating
change through amendments.

All of this may sound stuffy and terribly removed from some nice people
attempting to help others in great pain, but it's exactly the point.

There is nothing new about individual states challenging federal law. Over
the years they have refused to allow federally authorized trucks with
nuclear materials to travel within their boundaries, denied citizens the
right to a desegregated public education, and, yes, passed Proposition 215,
California's medical marijuana initiative, in 1996.

In each instance, the state has claimed sovereignty. In each instance, the
courts and sometimes Congress have deemed otherwise. Even though the
California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 215, the United States
Supreme Court has deemed otherwise in a series of decisions, including an
8-0 verdict earlier this year.

Does that leave people without a voice? Of course not. The right to protest
is critical to the workings of American government. With protest, elected
officials are made aware of grievances and injustices, sometimes leading
them to change the laws under which we operate. After all, elected
officials are put in office -- and potentially removed -- by voters in
their states. But protest or willful violation of the laws does not mean
that every law will be bent to the individual who objects.

We have laws and rules to prevent anarchy, pure and simple. If everyone did
as he or she pleased, society as we know it would cease to exist, and this
would quickly become the land of the most powerful or strongest. Those
concerns were central to the framers in 1787 and have been a cornerstone of
our way of government ever since.

Larry N. Gerston is professor of political science at San Jose State
University and a political analyst at NBC3. His latest book is "Public
Policy Making in a Democratic Society: A Guide to Civic Engagement'' (M.E.
Sharpe Publishers, 2002).