in

The US Supreme Court’s ruling asserting federal control over marijuana use for medical purposes may appear to have brought the practice to a halt, but has probably raised more questions than it has answered.

The US Supreme Court’s decision this week asserting federal control over marijuana used for medical purposes would seem to bring that controversial practice to a halt. Uncle Sam – not the states – has the last word here, the court ruled.

But the 6-to-3 ruling may have raised more questions than it answered – and not just in the 10 states where medical marijuana has been legally used to treat the pain and nausea of certain illnesses.

For example, will the federal Controlled Substances Act now be enforced more rigorously?

Advocates on both sides of the issue say they do not expect to see US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents breaking down the doors and ripping up the plants of medical-marijuana users, especially if state and local cops – not obliged to help federal agencies prosecute people following state law – don’t take part. Just a tiny fraction of the 750,000 pot busts made each year in the US are by DEA agents.

Will the ruling curb the number of states that allow medical marijuana? (The 10 that do are California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Maine.)

British MP George Galloway and his opponent the Daily Telegraph will leave no stone unturned to sort out what could be a spectacular libel case.

One of the authors claiming Dan Brown’s bestseller The Da Vinci Code copied his ideas has admitted he exaggerated his case in an interview with a journalist.