by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 6, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

pholding the federal Controlled Substances Act, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws legalizing medical marijuana could not shield patients from criminal prosecution. California's 1996 “Compassionate Use” law enabled physicians to recommend pot to the gravely ill, allowing patients to cultivate and use cannabis for medical purposes. Writing for the majority [6-3], Justice John Paul Stevens argued it was up to Congress to change current drug laws, not the Supreme Court. Current federal drug laws put marijuana in the same category as heroin or cocaine, making no distinction for penalties. Drug Enforcement Agency policy strictly prohibits the use of marijuana for any purpose, insisting there's no scientific evidence supporting its medical value. Scores of physicians and thousands of patients give personal testimonials and swear by the medical benefits of pot smoking.

      Stevens made it clear that the High Court was not passing judgment on the value of medical marijuana, only reaffirming federal drug policy. In the current case, plaintiff Diane Monson sued former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft after federal authorities seized her crop of six plants out of her backyard in 2002. While California law protected Monson, federal law permitted DEA agents to confiscate her plants. Referring to “the troubling facts,” Stevens could not get beyond the federal Controlled Substances Act, prohibiting cultivation, use and distribution of cannabis. Steven's ruling raised whether the Justice Department would begin cracking down on medical pot users. Ten states joined California enacting comparable medical marijuana laws. Legal experts question, as Steven's suggested, whether the Congress can meddle or pass laws that don't involve interstate commerce.

      Debating the benefits of medical marijuana goes down a slippery slope. Monson, 48, a resident of Oroville, Calif., suffers from chronic pain stemming from degenerative spinal disease, insists that marijuana “keeps her alive,” claiming FDA-approved pain medications exacerbate her symptoms, leaving her lethargic. “Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. The science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective,” said John P. Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, the White House's national drug czar. Walters doesn't mention all the FDA-approved drugs for which scientific evidence supports efficacy, when, in fact, many prescribed drugs are both unsafe and ineffective. Stevens points to alternative options in the “halls of Congress,” yet without interstate commerce Congress has limited jurisdiction.

      Setting national drug abuse policy is one thing, but meddling in states' rights to regulate commerce and set criminal laws crosses the line. Stevens argued that some physicians would abuse medical marijuana laws, leading to an up-tick in drug abuse, or, worse yet, criminal behavior. “Laws have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who over-prescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so,” said Stevens, impeaching his own logic, stating the same non sequitur that the “exception disproves the rule.” If Stevens were really concerned about malfeasant doctors he'd have go after thousands more who routinely over-prescribe FDA-approved drugs. “Making it a federal crisis to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home,” overreaches, said Reagan appointee Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, expressing the dissenting opinion that medical marijuana hurts no one.

      For too long local jails and state prisons have overflowed with nonviolent drug-related offenses, including, possession, cultivation and sale of marijuana. Whatever lack of proof exists about the alleged medical benefits of pot, there's far less proof that marijuana leads to crime or more dangerous drugs. California's 1996 medical marijuana law recognized that gravely sick individuals deserve any and all treatments that lessen suffering. Scientific proof isn't needed to justify the medical use of marijuana. “If I stop using cannabis, unfortunately, I would die,” said 39-nine-year-old Angel Raish, whose co-complaint was reviewed by the Supreme Court. Opponents to medical pot believe Raish could get relief from FDA-approved drugs for her scoliosis, brain tumor and chronic nausea. Her personal doctor believes that medical marijuana best relieves her symptoms.

      Hysteria about marijuana still colors today's debate about its medical uses. Instead of worrying about a few physicians or patients that might abuse medical marijuana laws, the Supreme Court should consider the untold suffering inflicted by canceling legitimate medical applications. No scientific study can disprove the relief obtained by real patients suffering from various conditions helped my medical marijuana. “I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested,” said Monson, refusing to give up her pot and worried that the Supreme Court's ruling could lead to more intrusive federal law enforcement. It's time for the federal Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Agency to remove marijuana from the same category as heroin and cocaine and acknowledge legitimate medical uses. No politician or judge should interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.