After reading the about the displeasure of some of our state officials ("Federal Meth Act Would Overrule State Law," June 8), I have to wonder what these state officials think about last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that federal marijuana laws overrule state laws protecting the use of marijuana by medical patients. (Iowa has had a medical marijuana law on the books since 1979.)
Do these state officials support state laws that are less restrictive than federal laws, or just state laws that are more restrictive?
I was proud of the three U.S. Supreme Court justices who said the decision on whether to allow medical marijuana should be decided by the states and not the federal government.
If politicians could maintain a consistent, rational approach to drug policy, it might get them further than crying crocodile tears whenever something doesn't go their way.
-Carl Olsen,
Iowans for Medical
Marijuana, Des Moines.
***Thank you for urging Congress to take action to protect medical marijuana patients ("Doctor or No, Cannabis Is Out," June 7 editorial). However, the Supreme Court did not "strike down" state laws allowing medical use of marijuana. All the court did was maintain the status quo: Patients protected under state law are not free from the possibility of arrest by federal authorities.
However, Congress can change that as soon as this week, when the House considers the Justice Department's appropriations bill. Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) will propose an amendment barring federal attacks on patients in states where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This humane, common-sense proposal deserves immediate passage.
-Bruce Mirken,
director of communications, Marijuana Policy Project, Washington, D.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment