Now they want the U.S. Supreme Court to put its stamp of approval on buyers' cooperatives that distribute the drug to people in need, arguing that a medical necessity ought to outweigh federal laws. Judging by their comments at a hearing this week, most of the justices don't appear to buy the arguments. We hope that's the case. That's an apt description. While we sympathize with people who are suffering with terminal illnesses and feel a joint is the best way to relieve pain, the buyers' cooperatives are excellent tools for distributing the drug for less noble causes, as well.
Society has good reason to be concerned about that.
So far, nine states have passed medical marijuana laws. Unfortunately, the court's ruling, expected sometime in June, will not negate this. The case at hand arose out of a Clinton administration lawsuit that specifically targets the buyers' clubs. If the court rules against those clubs, people in those states still would be free to grow and cultivate marijuana for their own use, but at least the distribution method, which has the ability to proliferate consumption, will be stopped. It may be true that marijuana plants contain chemicals with medicinal value, but credible science has yet to make that determination or to decide on the best method of delivery.