What they're saying…

The Philadelphia Daily News, on the supreme court's decision against medical marijuana:

Time to drop the doobie. Marijuana is bad for you, even if it's the only drug that makes the cancer that's killing you manageable.

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can't make marijuana legal for medicinal purposes -- trashing the laws of 10 states that did just that. ...

The ruling was hailed by the White House: drug czar John Walters said "today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue." He may be wrong about that. ...

While we're not ready to completely decriminalize marijuana, it's way past time for a more humane and rational approach. It's hard to think of grass as a major battle in the war on drugs, especially when you consider the harm and addictive properties of other legal drugs, like OxyContin.

Ten states -- and their voters -- saw the wisdom of treating marijuana differently from other controlled substances.

We suspect the rest of the nation would feel the same way -- if Congress would allow itself to consider the issue.

Los Angeles Times, on corruption along the U.S.-Mexico border:

Just as surely as the sky is blue, law enforcement in Mexico is corrupt. That assumption may too often be true, but it is incomplete. A federal sting that exposed surprising openness to bribery among U.S. soldiers and law enforcement officers on the U.S.-Mexico border ought to turn on a light bulb.

Recent stories ... showed that Army National Guard Humvees were used to deliver hundreds of pounds of cocaine to an Arizona hotel. ... Higher-level officials are apparently not immune.

A federal grand jury Tuesday indicted a former immigration service intelligence chief in San Diego on charges of covering up a drug and immigrant smuggling ring.

Even Forest Service rangers have been caught smuggling marijuana in Arizona. ...

The Arizona bribery sting is commendable, even if it shatters a few U.S. illusions. It also ought to raise some radical questions about the enforcement and results of our border policies.

Chicago Tribune, on Deep Throat:

... High drama and high mystery. The revelation of W. Mark Felt as Deep Throat tantalizes because it creates so many new mysteries.

Why did Felt, the No. 2 man at the FBI at the time, become a prime source for Washington Post reporters?

The Vanity Fair article in which Felt breaks his cover to author John D. O'Connor reveals that Felt harbored "increasing contempt for this curious crew at the White House, whom he saw as intent on utilizing the Justice Department for their political ends."

It may have been personal, too. After Hoover died, Felt was passed over for the top job when L. Patrick Gray became the bureau's interim successor.

A patriot out to save the country?

A guy with a grudge?

That's another mystery, the motivation of the leaker.

... Watergate wasn't just about a mishandled break-in of Democratic Party headquarters.

It was what followed the break-in that caused Nixon's fall, the coverup, the abuse of power, the White House's attempted misuse of government agencies, including the FBI. ...

Watergate was a scandal unlike any other in American history, leading to the only resignation by an American president. ... Yet Watergate can still surprise, can still turn up an old FBI man who fought encroachments, protected his turf and helped save the country from further grief.

Journal Star, Peoria, Ill., on Guantanamo Bay:

Last month Newsweek magazine retracted a small story reporting that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed the Quran down the toilet.

The magazine said its source wasn't sure. Unfortunately, the next two weeks produced better sources for stories of more hideous abuse.

The allegation from Amnesty International that the Cuba prison camp is "the gulag of our time" has gotten the most notoriety, understandably. ... By the Stalinist standards identified with the term, Guantanamo is no "gulag," and President Bush said so earlier this week. ...

Americans who were aghast at the pictures from Abu Ghraib should be equally disturbed by the verbal account from Bagram and by two of Amnesty International's conclusions: The United States tried to dilute the generally accepted torture ban, and its mistreatment of prisoners has granted a license to other nations to do the same.

This is not the kind of light this nation wants to shine, nor is it likely to get would-be attackers and their allies to buy President Bush's argument that we are the country that "promotes freedom around the world." ...

A president who sees the world in terms of right and wrong should not have been so ready to dismiss Amnesty's findings because the accounts came from "people who hate America."

-- from the Associated Press