Court to rule on medical drug law

The Supreme Court has decided to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a case it lost last year involving the federal ban on marijuana and the use of the drug to treat medical ailments.\nThe case was argued in the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 2003. The court ruled that California patients whose doctors have prescribed marijuana for medicinal proposes are not subject to the federal laws outlawing the use of the drug.\nEight states have medical marijuana laws similar to California's that allow patients to grow, use or receive marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. \nIn its appeal, the government argued that state laws that made medical marijuana legal contradicted federal drug laws.\nIU law professor Daniel Conkle said the federal government is authorized to regulate interstate commerce and added that this case seeks to answer if that power is broad enough to permit Congress to regulate home-grown marijuana. \n"Home-grown marijuana for medicinal purposes is not adequately connected to the national economy or interstate commerce," Conkle said. \nThe case was raised by two women from California, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who say marijuana helps treat their ailments. Raich, 38, has a brain tumor and scoliosis. Monson, 45, has chronic back pain and spasms. \nThere are medical drugs, such as Marinol, which are approved by the Federal Drug Administration that contain THC, the chemical in marijuana that produces. the psychological effects. \nJoseph Near, associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology, said the medicinal and social merits of marijuana are still a subject of debate.\n"To my knowledge we do not have evidence from well-designed studies to decide one way or the other on the effectiveness of this form of treatment when compared with FDA-approved THC, or on all of the negative medical and social aspects," Near said. \nDespite California law permitting people with medical prescriptions to grow marijuana, the federal government prohibits citizens from using it across the nation and authorizes federal agencies to apprehend violators. \nIU Police Department Lt. Jerry Minger said the only relevant question for police enforcement is the legality of marijuana, irrespective of its medicinal merits.\n"If a court case gives a person the right to grow marijuana for medical purposes, we have no problem with that," Minger said. "It is not our job to see if something is right or wrong, we are merely law enforcement."\nWhen asked about conflicts arising from enforcing state or federal laws Minger said "our powers of enforcement come from the state."\nJunior Susan Osowski said she supported legalizing the use of marijuana to treat medical aliments.\n"If marijuana is the only drug that helps those women, then what right does the federal government have to take that away from them?"\nThe Supreme Court will hear opening arguments on the case in October.\n-- Contact staff writer Priyanka Skewakramani at pshewakr@indiana.edu.