CONGRESS SHOULD LIFT ITS MEDICAL 'POT' BAN

Even if New Mexico passes a bill allowing medical use of marijuana, those
sick enough to need or want it would likely face federal prosecution if
they chose to use it. It is time for Congress to step in and address the
conundrum faced by states trying to help citizens by enacting medical
marijuana laws.

Federal laws banning marijuana's manufacture and distribution allow no
exceptions for use even by seriously ill patients, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled last May.

In its ruling, the high court said the so-called "medical necessity
defense" used by the Oakland (Calif.) Cannabis Buyers Cooperative was
irreconcilable with the 1970 federal law. In writing for the court, Justice
Clarence Thomas noted that Congress' Controlled Substances Act of 1970
makes it a matter of law that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical
use."

In the 30 years since Congress passed the act, however, research has
indicated that marijuana can relieve suffering and even prolong life for
some ill or terminally ill patients.

New Mexico's pioneering medical marijuana research program, begun in 1978
but discontinued in 1986 for lack of funding, reached similar conclusions
- -- conclusions that were supported by a National Institute of Medicine
report two years ago. Patients shown to benefit include those suffering
from glaucoma, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, the nausea of chemotherapy or
AIDS. Importantly, both the New Mexico and national research concluded that
allowing medicinal use of marijuana would not lead to widespread abuse.

Outside of the medical necessity question, however, the 1970 act raises
important constitutional questions, including that of states rights. As
governor of Texas, George W. Bush opposed legalizing marijuana for
medicinal use, yet said he believed each state should make its own decision
in the matter.

Politically, the time is ripe for Congress to revisit the federal ban.

The New Mexico Legislature is seriously considering a medical marijuana law
but, realistically, its passage would subject already suffering citizens to
potential federal prosecution if they were to avail themselves of the
provisions of the law. An advocate from the New Mexico Drug Policy Project
told the Legislature last week that federal drug priorities make it
unlikely the Drug Enforcement Administration would prosecute for small
amounts of marijuana. However, many potential users -- particularly older
citizens -- would be loath to run even a small risk of an illegal drug use
charge.

In June 2000, federal agents jailed a young Californian suffering from AIDS
for using the drug. They sent him home on bail after urine tests proved he
no longer used and, sometime after, he died.

Would federal prosecutors interfere if New Mexico had a state agency or
university grow and dispense marijuana, as has been proposed? That appears
likely, too. On Oct. 25, just six weeks after the terrorist attacks of
Sept. 11, the federal government found it resource-wise to send 30 DEA
agents to Los Angeles, armed with a Florida judge's warrant, to close down
and confiscate the drugs and medical records of a center that had been
dispensing prescription-only marijuana for nearly five years. The clinic
had been set up with the help of the Los Angeles County sheriff.

Just this week, DEA director Asa Hutchinson reminded New Mexico in writing
that any marijuana cultivation, distribution or possession violates federal
law.

Only Congress can correct this conundrum for the states by updating an
archaic law. Current medical evidence, states rights and compassion
prescribe it.