Despite laws in some states allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, the Supreme Court ruled last Monday that federal authorities have the right to prosecute individuals who grow, distribute or use medicinal marijuana in every state. Although the court sidestepped the issue of marijuana’s legitimacy as a treatment for pain and nausea, the decision overruled many successful state ballot initiatives and is a major setback for medicinal pot supporters. By making the case an issue of states’ rights, however, the court’s decision wisely preserves the federal government’s authority to protect workers and consumers by regulating interstate commerce. Furthermore, the ruling does not lay the issue to rest; Congress can and should still move to pass a law altering marijuana’s legal status.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled to override medicinal marijuana laws in 11 different states that allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana to ease the pain of patients suffering from serious illness. The case was originally brought to court by a California resident, Diane Monson, who was found guilty of growing marijuana in her home to control the back pain caused by her degenerative spine disease.

Though the court expressed sympathy for medicinal marijuana users, it avoided the issue of whether medicinal marijuana should be legalized. Justice John Paul Stevens said federal drug laws clearly encompass the use of marijuana and that allowing states to form their own laws on this issue would undermine the federal government’s ability to regulate interstate commerce.

The reasoning behind the ruling has more to do with the balance of power between the state and federal government than with drug regulation. Though the plaintiffs claimed that marijuana produced and used in California should not be subject to the interstate commerce clause, the court held that federal laws apply to commerce within a state that could affect the interstate market.

It may be difficult to see a real difference between interstate and intrastate commerce in the modern era. Ideally, the court would have found a way to reconcile states’ referenda on medicinal marijuana within the context of states’ rights. Its failure to do so is not a total loss, however, as the ruling affirms the federal government’s right to legislate on labor regulation, environmental protection and even racial discrimination. Through the interstate commerce clause, the federal government must maintain its ability to assert authority in these areas, or states could act to limit workers’ rights laws and environmental protection measures.

The next step for advocates of medicinal marijuana is to pressure Congress to change federal laws concerning the drug. Currently, a measure co-sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) would prevent federal funding from being used to prosecute medicinal marijuana users in states that permit its use. Although support for the measure crosses party lines, even this watered-down proposal may not pass. Ultimately, Congress needs to reconsider marijuana’s current classification as a Schedule 1 drug with no acknowledgment of its medical uses in lieu of a more lenient designation.

Overall support for medical marijuana is building up. A 2002 Time Magazine/CNN poll found 80 percent of Americans support the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Congress should acknowledge the overwhelming will of its constituents: If supporters agressively push legislators, the legalization of medicinal marijuana can become a reality.