Clearing up this particular smoke-filled room

That damned, activist Supreme Court! Stepping in where it doesn't belong! Oh, wait...it appears that the Court has actually upheld the superiority of a fairly clear federal statute over an oddly written state law. Well, that's different then.

The state law in question is California's medical marijuana statute, under which patients, seemingly based on as little as an oral recommendation from a doctor, can buy, smoke, and even grow the drug for their personal use.

Does that make sense? My wife is a doctor, and assures me that there are medicinal benefits from marijuana's active ingredient, THC. Why, if this is the case, don't concerned groups 1) lobby the federal government for changes to the Controlled Substances Act to move marijuana out of Schedule I, representing the most tightly controlled drugs, and 2) request the FDA to establish standards for the prescription and use of THC which 3) may then be produced safely under FDA supervision? But no, what we have is this sense that, if you need it, you should smoke it. I notice that we don't encourage people with chronic conditions to go out and plant poppies to make homemade opium.

No, what we have is clearly another agenda masquerading as a "medical benefit" argument. If you think it has medicinal value, urge its use as a medicine.

And since it wouldn't be a good post if I didn't stick it to the mainstream media, allow me to present this headline from the AP: "Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People." Technically true, but doesn't that have a little bit of a biased ring to it?