STATES HAVE RIGHT TO MAKE OWN LAWS

San Francisco leaders have turned heads recently by appearing publicly in a
new type of transpolitical apparel. Members of the ultraliberal San
Francisco City Council have suddenly taken on states' rights - normally a
conservative stance - as their cause celebre. Their opponent is none other
than ultraconservative Attorney General John Ashcroft - normally a states'
rights advocate - who is asserting the supremacy of the federal government.

At issue is the desire of California citizens to allow seriously ill
patients to use medical marijuana to relieve their pain and discomfort.
Advocates in San Francisco have proposed a program in which the city
government would grow and distribute medical marijuana; a November ballot
measure is planned. If San Francisco voters approve the measure, a major
confrontation over states' rights will be triggered and may prove to be one
of the most significant federalism cases in decades.

Federalism protects the states from the encroachment of the federal
government, leaving the primary decisions of government to the individual
states. It is a principle based on the idea that power is safest when held
closest to the people. Under our system, each state is allowed to try what
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once described as "novel social
and economic experiments" in solving contemporary problems.

Federalism is often wrongly seen as a Republican or conservative position.
Liberals have long considered the federal government to be more enlightened
than the states.

Both conservatives and liberals now face a quandary. While liberals were
once happy to see the federal government shape state policies in its own
image, they are less enthusiastic now that the image is that of Ashcroft.

In California, advocates found themselves arguing for the use of medical
marijuana to a man who does not smoke, drink or dance and who probably
viewed the 1936 movie "Reefer Madness" as a medical documentary.

Liberals have suddenly discovered federalism and the right of state
self-determination. While conservatives have long defended states' rights,
they now face states that want to experiment with gay marriages, medical
marijuana and assisted suicide.

Regardless of the merits of medical marijuana, Californians are rightfully
aggrieved by the federal government telling them it alone can approve
certain drugs for the use of the terminally ill. While growing pot in San
Francisco may seem less inspiring than dumping tea in Boston, it is a
defiant act that speaks of the right of citizens to self-determination.

If San Francisco draws this line in the constitutional sand, it will force
conservatives on the Supreme Court to make a choice between their
principles and their personal inclinations.

In 2001, the court considered a case involving a federal crackdown on a
cooperative in Oakland, Calif., that distributed medical marijuana,
consistent with state, but not federal, law. In a decision written by
Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court rejected the cooperative's claim
of medical necessity.

However, in a virtual invitation for challenge, the court expressly
reserved the question of whether the federal government was violating
federalism guarantees in its enforcement of drug laws over state medical
marijuana measures.

The San Francisco program may finally answer that question.

Whatever societal risks are presented by terminally ill patients getting
stoned, they pale in comparison with the political risks of yielding to
federal authority in this area.

Yet perhaps this controversy will show liberals have much to gain from
federalism, particularly in states like California, with a history of bold
social programs and experimentation.

In the end, California may not be right about medical marijuana, but it has
a right to be wrong.