Supremes Back Bush on Medical Marijuana

Well, the Supreme Court Ruled that the Federal government can overrule state's medical marijuana laws. Before the court were the cases of two California women who had been busted by DEA agents for growing medical marijuana for their own use. This supports the Bush administration argument that medical marijuana conflicts with drug enforcement strategies.

The argument is clearly about two issues in my opinion. First is state's rights to determine what is medically appropriate. The states' decisions are important because both medical marijuana (as well as right to die which is also under attack) are initiatives that voters are heavily involved in. Second is the issue of the power of pharmaceutical companies. Big Pharma wants medical marijuana where those with prescriptions have the right to grow their own marijuana (or purchase from approved sources) banned in the push for their THC pills (which have generally been shown to not be as effective).

The argument that medical marijuana "complicates" the job of drug law enforcement seems totally bogus to me. Here is both legal and illegal traffic in a wide array of drugs. Do they want to ban those drugs (morphine, oxycontin, vicodin, methadone, sleeping medications, etc.) because they sometimes find their way to the streets? I doubt it. That would infringe on the profit making activities of pharmaceutical companies. Those who are medical marijuana users have the documentation to prove their right to grow and possess small quantities of marijuana. What's the problem? It doesn't seem to be a law enforcement issue.

The ruling potentially puts hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana users in the DEA crosshairs. This is not just foolish, it is immoral to extend the bounds of the "drug war" to seriously ill people.

While fighting against medical marijuana as undermining the "war on drugs," the President has been more than willing to push legislation that will put potentially millions of children ON drugs. Bush created the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in 2003, and the plan that came out of that commission was the mandatory mental health screening of every child through the school system (K-12). There has been pressure to require parental consent for the testing, but the informed consent may be missing. Part of the legislation provides significant funding for prescription of drugs for children found to have "mental problems." The issues such legislation are large and far reaching. (See this article, or this one, or TeenScreen - Who Pays For Treatment & Drugs?.)

One might think that putting potentially millions of children on drugs for "mental problems" might truly "complicate" enforcement of drug laws.