by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 30, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

ince government propaganda called “Reefer Madness” hit the silver screen in 1938, the government continues its mass hysteria against marijuana. “Reefer Madness” depicted marijuana as a dangerous drug, typically leading to crime and drug addiction. Dredging up images of sex-crazed loonies, the Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court how current medical marijuana laws violate the federal government's ban on controlled substances. Justices agreed to review the case of two sick California women prescribed marijuana strictly for medical purposes. “Smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine,” said acting Solicitor Gen. Paul D. Clement, warning that medical marijuana use threatens the federal ban on illegal drugs. Clement doesn't have a clue about the thousands—possibly millions—of seriously ill patients helped by smoking marijuana.

     For too long, the government hasn't come clean with the facts about medical marijuana. Those suffering from serious illnesses swear by the life-saving effects of smokeable marijuana—not its denatured or synthetic derivative of delta-9 tetrahydrocanibonal, the active ingredient in marijuana. Since California approved the “compassionate use act” in 1996, enabling residents to harvest and smoke marijuana under medical supervision, the federal government persecuted marijuana clubs and individuals. Today's court must now decide whether personal use under medical direction violates international commerce and the war on drugs. “This is non-economic activity and wholly interstate,” said Boston University law Professor Randy E. Barrett, arguing that his clients Angel Raich and Diane Monson grew and used pot for purely medical purposes.

     Back in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that “cannabis clubs” cannot distribute medical marijuana to seriously ill patients. California's liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals already ruled that medical marijuana use was different than narco-trafficking. Before the Supreme can rule responsibly on the issue, the Food and Drug Administration must reclassify pot from its current status as a dangerous drug. For 66 years, government propaganda has prevented the public from getting the real facts on marijuana. Unlike alcohol, marijuana doesn't create dramatic changes in reaction time, causing dangerous accidents. But whatever the merits or drawbacks of marijuana, the court must rule on whether federal drug laws supersede state's right to provide legitimate medical treatment. Some estimates indicate that as many as 100,000 patients currently receive chemotherapy in California.

     Justice David Souter argued that potentially 100,000 cases might have a significant impact on the overall drug market. Souter's concerns reflect the government's continued disinformation campaign about marijuana. Lawyers supporting “compassionate use” should plead their case before the FDA, seeking to have marijuana taken off the government's list of dangerous drugs. It would be futile, as Justice Stephen Breyer suggests, for the plaintiffs to plead their case before the Drug Enforcement Agency, when the DEA currently classifies marijuana as a schedule-1 narcotic. “Medicine is better by regulation than referendum,” said Breyer, poking holes in California's 1996 “compassionate use” law, allowing licensed physicians to prescribe marijuana. Equating marijuana with heroin and keeping it as a schedule-1 narcotic causes the current mess.

     Instead of fighting a cultural trend, the government should get with the program declassify marijuana as a schedule 1-narcotic. No bureaucrat can understand the medicinal properties of smoking marijuana. Smoking is harmful. It's true of tobacco, but it's also true of marijuana,” said Clement, changing the argument to the merits of smoking, not whether smokeable marijuana improves the medical conditions of seriously ill patients. Patients suffering from AIDS or pancreatic cancer don't need to be lectured by the government, incapable of determining medical benefits. Instead of missing the point, the Solicitor General should try to get the bigger picture—trying to ascertain whether medical marijuana actually threatens current DEA policy. Morphine or heroin-derivatives are routinely prescribed for chronic pain. Reclassifying marijuana would change the entire debate.

    Before politics sway the high court, it's time to get the medical marijuana issue in perspective. Debating the merits of smoking has nothing to do with putative medical benefits of pot smoking. Patients afflicted with serious illnesses know the merits. Fugitives from the rebellious ‘60s aren't driving the debate on medical marijuana. It's not a counterculture issue for physicians to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes. No matter how extensively used for medical treatment, marijuana doesn't undermine the DEA's war on drugs. Reclassifying marijuana would go a long way in ending the government's 66-year-old disinformation campaign. Prescribing powerful narcotics for pain relief don't spread drug addiction on skid row—neither does prescribing marijuana for legitimate medical reasons. Medical experts have spoken: It's now time the government gets the message.

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.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.