forming and dangerous, where marijuana, classified as aSchedule I, has never caused a death or overdose and is not considered addictive. The federalgovernment refuses to reclassify marijuana because there “is no proof that smoked marijuana isthe most effective available treatment for anything.” (McCaffrey 27) There can be no proof untilmarijuana has been tested in a series of clinical trials. There can be no clinical testing of marijuanabecause the federal government will not allow them (Conant 26). Anyone who has read the bookCatch-22 will find this situation familiar. The government opponents of medicinal marijuana are against it for political rather than practicalreasons. Clinton, who suffered in the polls after he admitted to smoking pot, has taken a stronganti-drug stance to follow in the popular vein of Reagan and Bush’s “war on drugs.” Congresshas taken a strong anti-drug stance, which could be viewed as another example of Congress’detachment from the people they represent, since 35 states have laws that allow marijuana formedicinal use in certain circumstances. The newly passed referendums in Arizona and Californiademonstrate popular support of these laws, and that they couldn’t be passed through California’slegislature also demonstrates the representative’s isolation from the voters. Federal law, whichbans marijuana for all uses, makes all these state laws illegal. This issue represents the powerstruggle between the state governments and the federal government. The federal government hasno constitutional right to ban drugs, especially not if it overrides a state law. This issue hasbecome more than just marijuana for treatment of the sick, it has grown to include the federalgovernment’s desire to maintain its dominance over the state governments. Unfortunately, peoplewhose morality and patriotism prevent them from using marijuana to treat their cancer, AIDS,glaucoma, or...
