Monday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
HIGH court delivers T nw blow
*•- * x ^ V . W; -LA—J W
Last Monday, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled 8-0
that manufacturers and dis
tributors of medical mari
juana cannot claim a “medical ne
cessity” exception to the
Controlled Substances Act, passed
by Congress, which makes those
actions crimes. This ruling has lit
tle direct effect on patients using
marijuana for medical purposes;
it just makes it illegal for groups
such as the Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Cooperative, the defen
dant in this case, to grow and
I sell marijuana to suffering people
who need the remedy.
The Court’s ruling does, howev
er, heighten other confusing ques
tions about medical marijuana,
and the Emerald editorial board
believes Congress should provide
a more consistent and humane ap
proach regarding marijuana and
medical care. On April 3, Rep. Bar
ney Frank, D-Mass., along with
nine co-sponsors introduced a bill
in the U.S. House of Representa
tives that would do just that. HR
1344 states that federal laws can
not stop states from allowing legal
distribution and possession of
marijuana for medical purposes.
The bill is currently sitting in the
House Energy and Commerce
Committee’s Subcommittee on
Health. We encourage concerned
parties to contact their representa
tives in support of this bill. Med
ical marijuana should be allowed.
The first thorny area is that of
impact and enforcement. Nine
states, including Oregon, currently
allow for the use of medical mari
juana. None of those states’ laws
are overturned by this ruling, and
patients have little to fear, accord
ing to federal attorneys in recent
news reports. The resources sim
ply do not exist to enforce every vi
olation. And an Oregon federal of
Giovanni Salimena Emerald
ficial told The Oregonian for a sto
ry printed Tuesday that the ques
tion is academic, because medical
marijuana cases rarely meet the
criteria for prosecution of drug
crimes.
If these aren’t “drug crimes,”
and people using medical marijua- ■
na will, under this ruling, be grow
ing their own medicine and using
it in their own homes, then why
doesn’t * .*
Con
gress
make this
whole process legal and help peo
ple who are suffering and dying?
Using medical marijuana is a per
sonal, private act, and the anecdot
al evidence, while only anecdotal,
is overwhelming. Some people
with unbeatable spasms from
muscular dystrophy can get relief
from marijuana. Some people with
cancer and AIDS can again find it
pleasant to eat when they smoke
marijuana. The list could go on
and on. How long will we remain
blind and callous in the face of
such suffering?
The second prickly area in this
debate is the Constitution itself.
Representatives of cannabis coop
eratives say this is only the first
battle. Other constitutional issues
will be raised and fought over, in
particular, the looming shadow of
states’ rights, often inconsistently
applied by conservatives.
Here is yet another case. Mari
juana is not a hard drug, similar to
heroin or methamphetamine. It is
more akin to alcohol or tobacco,
yet the Court, which proved its
conservative clout in the 2000
election, seems to believe states’
rights should be trampled on in or
der to control this drug. We believe
in states’ rights and local rights,
unless a clear and compelling
need (such as the need to prevent
murder) demands that the federal
government take action. There is
no such need with medical mari
juana, and states’ rights are ad
dressed with Rep. Frank’s bill.
Finally, the arguments about
marijuana’s medical benefits
quickly become a sticky quagmire.
The Court found that Congress had
decided marijuana had no medical
benefit, so medical necessity was
not applicable. Where does Con
gress get the knowledge to deter
mine medical benefit? Thousands
of people have received medical
benefit from smoking marijuana.
But not every person receives such
benefit, the argument goes. It’s
hard to tell for whom it will work.
Well then, what about the plethora
of dangerous drugs that are al
lowed to be used medicinally and
don’t work for everyone? Prozac
turns some people into zombies.
Many people get hooked on opiate
derivatives that are supposed to
help their lives, not make them
worse. Why single out marijuana,
when it has the potential to allevi
ate intense suffering? One possible
answer: Marijuana might not be
able to be made into a pharmaceu
tical drug, and drug companies
can’t make enormous profits if pa
tients treat themselves with a plant
they grow at home.
Marijuana contains 66 known
cannabinoids, which are the
chemically active compound in
the drug. It is difficult to know
how these cannabinoids work to
gether, and it is even more difficult
to find out how they might work
together with the amino acids and
proteins found in marijuana. This
is probably why Marinol, the
trademarked synthetic form of
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), isn’t
as effective as smoking marijuana
for many patients.. Singling out one
chemical compound, THC, and
then synthetically manufacturing
it can’t possibly provide the same
effects as 66 (or more) intercon
nected natural chemical com
pounds.
Much like cannabinoids, all of
these arguments are complicated
and closely connected to each oth
er. Congress should allow suffering
people to use marijuana while it
undertakes more involved clinical
trials of marijuana and develops a
sane, consistent policy that recog
nizes the benefits some patients re
ceive from smoking marijuana.
Rep. Frank’s bill is a step in that di
rection, and we encourage readers
to support it.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board. Responses
can be sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu.
Title VII protections not broad enough
Guest Commentary
AbsanA.
A wan
With regard to the spir
it of Take Back the
Night, the dedication
to ending violence by
honoring survivors and celebrating
activism need not be limited to
women alone. While gender may
be the leading cause of harassment,
both in the community and the
workplace, harassment based on
sexual orientation is increasingly
problematic.
In our own region, governed by
the law of the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, gay employees
cannot sue under Title VII for sex
ual harassment in the workplace.
In a 2-1 decision — Rene v. MGM
Grand Hotel, Inc., March 29, 2001
— the 9th Circuit held that where
a gay employee was harassed and
assaulted by his co-workers, Title
VII did not provide a cause of ac
tion, because the harassment was ,
I l'i '* » t i t t ‘ * t i i * ii <(i,( i ,
not “based on sex.”
The plaintiff, a hotel butler, was
continually harassed by male co
workers over a two-year period. On
a daily basis, the plaintiffs anus
and genitals were grabbed and
poked, and he was taunted regard
ing his sexual orientation. As a re
sult, he sued, relying on a decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court — On
cale v. Sundowner Offshore Ser
vices, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) —
holding same-sex harassment ac
tionable under Title VII.
However, the 9th Circuit, inter
preting Oncale, said that the
Supreme Court opinion “did not
indicate that one of the ways a
plaintiff can prove same-sex dis
crimination is discrimination
based on sexual orientation.”
Rather, the 9th Circuit majority
held that “in determining the moti
vation for harassment, courts must
be mindful of the fact that Title VII
protects against discrimination
only on the basis of race, color, re
ligion, sex or national origin.”
Therefore, “[d]iscrimination based
on other characteristics, no matter
how distasteful that discrimination
may be, simply does not fall within
the purview of Title VII.”
The sole dissenting judge argued
that “while gay-baiting insults and
teasing are not actionable under Ti
tle VII, a line is crossed when the
abuse is physical and sexual.”
Where that line is dratvn, when it
is crossed and what available
remedies exist on the other side are
questions that remain unanswered.
If Title VII is not the appropriate
statutory provision under which
an action exists, then where does
one exist? If Title VII provides no
appropriate remedy for same-sex
harassment, then where does an
appropriate remedy exist? Whether
the legislature needs to amend the
law or the court needs to delve into
prior legislative intent, one thing is
certain: In the spirit of anti-dis
criminatory activism, something
must be done to stop the violence.
Ahsan A. Awan was a senior justice on the
ASUO Constitution Court until he graduat
ed from the University’s School of Law May
13. .
Poll Results:
Every week, the Emerald prints the results of our online poll and the poll
question for next week. The poll can be accessed from the main page
of our Web site, www.dailyemerald.com. We encourage you to send us
feedback about the poll questions and results.
last week's poll question:
Why was the evidence about Timothy McVeigh withheld?
Results: 83 total votes
International conspiracy — 8 votes, or 9.6 percent
Government incompetence—44 votes, of 53 percent
Bureaucratic red tape —11 votes, or 133 percent
FBI overconfidence—20 votes, or 24.1 percent
Well, government incompetence was the big winner this week. It is not so
often that one can say that and mean it. FBI overconfidence was a distant
second, so maybe it was some combination. McVeigh is guilty, they figured,
so-why do our job right? This serious poll’s meager showing inspired a new,
frivolous springtime question for this week. Read on.
This week's poll question:
Which is the best gum for blowing bubbles?
The choices:
Hubba Bubba
Bubblicious
Bubble Yum
Big League Chew