cannabisnews.com: Bitter Medicine Bitter Medicine Posted by FoM on May 16, 2001 at 20:38:40 PT Editorial Source: Newsday Don't blame the Supreme Court's five-member conservative majority for deciding that federal law forbids the distribution of marijuana even when a state allows its use in cases of medical necessity. All eight justices who heard the case (Stephen Breyer took a pass because his kid brother was the trial judge) came to the same conclusion: When Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, it made no exception for the medical use of marijuana. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion, the courts are supposed to interpret the federal criminal code; they're "not at liberty to rewrite it." But Congress is at liberty to rewrite, of course, and that's what it should do: Amend the law to let a patient use marijuana when a doctor determines it's medically necessary. Nine states have already done this-all but one of them by referendum rather than legislative act. Those voters can't all be drug-crazed hippies bent on legalizing pot for the masses. Despite a dearth of rigorous clinical trials, there's a wealth of anecdotal evidence that marijuana can be effective in treating cancer patients' nausea during chemotherapy as well as the loss of appetite that afflicts patients in the advanced stages of AIDS. The National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine reached this conclusion two years ago. Does anyone really think Congress is in a better position to make judgments like this than doctors and patients? Even if Congress doesn't act, the Supreme Court hasn't necessarily handed down its last word on the subject. Medicinal marijuana proponents say they're prepared to argue in court that the law doesn't prevent sick people from growing plants for their own medical use, and Maine and Nevada have actually been considering state-run distribution systems. Let's see how the high court's states'-rights conservatives handle that one. The truth is that mindlessly "tough" drug laws don't prevent recreational users from obtaining marijuana, but they do make criminals of desperately ill people who may have no other way to relieve their suffering. If "compassionate conservatism" means anything at all, it ought to take these people's needs into account. How about it, Congress? Note: The Supreme Court couldn't rewrite the law on medical marijuana, so Congress should.Source: Newsday (NY)Published: May 16, 2001Copyright: 2001 Newsday Inc.Contact: letters newsday.comWebsite: http://www.newsday.com/O.C.B.C. Versus The U.S. Government News http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #1 posted by Cuzn Buzz on May 16, 2001 at 21:46:34 PT I almost agree almost. For once I almost agree with Clarence Thomas. The supremes should have considered the contract between We The People and Them The Government.If a law intrudes upon ourLife, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is no law, but a fiction, being outside the contract.The supremes most certainly can look at the law and say "We have seen ancedotal evidence that using medical marijuana in some instances helps sustain or improve the quality of life.""Doing what is needed to sustain or improve the quality of life seems to be constitutionaly protected". "Taking away somebodys Liberty for a choice which is pro life seems to be unconstitutional"."We then, in good fellowship with We The People, do advise them to go pursue some happiness".Come to think of it, I guess I don't almost agree with Clarence Thomas.FREEDOM IS NORML. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: