EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief
Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor
Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor
Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor
Amy Golod
 Staff Representative
Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative
Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898
The Supreme Court has outlawed a medication that eases pain in
terminally ill patients’ last days. On May 14, the court
unanimously ruled that under federal law, marijuana cannot be used
or distributed for any purpose, medical or otherwise. The ruling
strikes a blow to Proposition 215 ““ passed by California
voters in 1996 ““ which allows patients with physically
debilitating diseases such as cancer and AIDS to obtain small
amounts of marijuana.
Unfortunately, this decision reflects our country’s
obsession with carrying out an ineffective drug war at the expense
of social welfare and health.
The extraordinary emphasis placed on combatting drug
distribution and recreational usage in the United States has made
it easier for the government to disregard the medical value of
drugs like marijuana.
And instead of dealing with drug addicts by providing treatment,
the government spends money to imprison them. The skyrocketing
amount of money allocated in the federal budget to fighting drug
use shows this.
This year, $19.2 billion was reserved in the federal budget to
counter drug use; compare this to the $1 billion used for the same
purpose in 1980. Not surprisingly, the bulk of these funds ““
more than two-thirds ““ is utilized for law enforcement alone.
That means less than a third of the drug budget goes to
treatment.
But the government needs to start rethinking its approach to
combatting drug use.
Even former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey stated we should take the
resources used to fight drugs and “draw them into effective
drug treatment.”
The Bush administration, along with Attorney General John
Ashcroft and Drug Czar-designate John Walters, should heed
McCaffrey’s words, especially since they have stated their
desire to continue the failed war on drugs. In fact, one of
Walters’ priorities is to escalate the battle against drug
production in Latin America, including Columbia ““ even though
$1.3 billion has already been allocated to be spent there over the
next two years. Ironically, Bush boasts about “smaller
government,” but is eager to spend our tax money to fund a
drug war thousands of miles away.
The criminalization of drugs has unnecessarily politicized this
issue. Patients are now footing the bill to advance conservative
agendas.
Perhaps Justice Clarence Thomas has never had the experience of
being unable to swallow food ““ after all, he doesn’t
believe marijuana should be used “even when the patient is
seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for relief,” as
he stated in a footnote in the court’s majority opinion.
And it’s certainly not surprising that the court’s
conservative majority, in ruling against states’ rights in
this case, has added to the belief that they are politically
motivated. Though we recognize that federal law reigns supreme over
state law, the continuous swing between favoring state and federal
rights will probably lead to contradictory precedents.
Nobody has the right to deny someone his or her personal comfort
if they can achieve that comfort without hurting or infringing on
the rights of others.
Respecting another’s necessities and beliefs is key to
making social progress. Plenty of doctors say marijuana alleviates
pain and nausea in terminally ill patients and helps them eat.
Though the law does protect the medical decisions of others, they
are denying this medicine to people on their deathbeds.
For example, it’s against the law for a doctor to
administer a life-saving blood transfusion on a patient who is a
Jehovah’s Witness, a religion that opposes medical treatment
involving the use of blood. But why should we favor one
person’s needs over another’s?
We shouldn’t.
If a patient dependent on medical marijuana respects
someone’s moral opposition to certain kinds of medical
treatment, such as blood transfusions, that person’s desire
to make the end of his or her life easier by using marijuana should
be respected as well.
It’s time to relinquish the political fighting over
medical marijuana and examine the case for what it is: a health
issue. It’s a shame that in an effort to curb drug use, we
have become insensitive and negligent of personal health needs.
The effort to expand the war on drugs in Latin America and in
the United States has turned into a war against patients as well,
criminalizing legitimate forms of medical treatment.
And it’s truly sad and ironic that the Supreme Court, the
institution responsible for ensuring that everyone has an equal
opportunity for “life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness,” is behind this latest setback.