MEDICAL POLICY GONE TO POT

Sickly Marijuana Law Is Cowardly Compassion By The Feds

The echinacea is blooming in my backyard right now. Pretty pink
coneflowers, just like the ones on the bottle of capsules for which I
paid $12.99 last time I had a cold.

Next time I get a sore throat, I'd love to pull up a few of those
plants and self-medicate. But I wouldn't know where to start.

I wouldn't know what I was doing and could end up doing more harm to
myself than good.

That, more or less, is what bothers me about the federal government's
new medical marijuana laws.

It's not that the new regime makes pot legal -- apparently for the
first time in the world -- for sick people. Heaven knows that's the
only thing everyone in the drug debate agrees on -- sick people should
not be given criminal records for trying to make themselves feel better.

No, it's that the new system, in all its bureaucratic glory, makes pot
available ONLY to the very ill.

Hear me out.

The regulations, as they now stand, are stupefying. You must be
gravely ill, first of all -- no getting your doctor to prescribe pot
for a headache or that thing your left knee does when it rains.

You must have exhausted all other means of medication. You must have
two physicians' signatures -- unless you're terminally ill, in which
case Ottawa will let you get away with just one. Meet all these
requirements and, lucky you, you're allowed to grow your own.

If that's too much trouble and responsibility, considering your
illness and all, you can also designate someone to grow for you, but
that person can't be growing for anyone else, since we don't want to
encourage the pot-growing industry or anything like that.

Alternatively, you can wait for the first crop from the new
government-sanctioned marijuana lab, located in an abandoned mine in
Flin Flon, Man., but it won't be ready until at least this fall.

No wonder the policy has pleased no one, least of all those who really
need the stuff, who say it's actually increased the red tape they have
to cut through.

And no wonder doctors are upset. The Canadian Medical Association has
blasted the system, saying it shows little regard for patient safety.

Since when, after all, do doctors tell people to self-medicate by
smoking a plant that hasn't been clinically tested -- "smoke a few
joints and call me in the morning"? The slogan "if it feels good, do
it" is no basis for medical policy.

The problem, as I see it, is that the policy is backwards, thanks, of
course, to the great taboo against illegal drugs.

We still can't handle the idea of fully legal marijuana, but we're
willing to make an exception for really sick people.

So we're using our most vulnerable people as guinea pigs. Surely this
is wrong. If anything, legalization should come first, if only so we
can get a better handle on the effects of marijuana on everyone.

I've written before that I have qualms about outright legalization of
pot, mainly because of the potency of the drug as it's grown today,
and the lack of a reliable way to gauge its effects (for instance, a
test for impairment, since no one who drinks OR tokes should ever drive).

As it happens, these are the very same objections raised by the CMA
when it comes to prescribing pot -- it's simply not a properly tested
or controlled medicine. Obviously, the fact that it's been illegal all
this time has hampered research.

Let's face it, official drug policy is a web of official hypocrisy
that starts with booze and tobacco and only gets worse.

Meanwhile, more than 30 years after the Le Dain commission, we still
lack reliable data on the effects of smoking pot, including addiction
rates.

Sadly, the issue is so politically charged that anyone who dares to
suggest pot might have any ill effects will be deluged with mail from
angry enthusiasts (done that, been there).

I'm not saying pot is dangerous, but I'm with the CMA -- skeptical and
frustrated with the lack of anything but anecdotal research on how it
affects all of us.

True, it brings relief to many people and it's not deadly like
tobacco, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to know more.

But I'll say this much for legalization: It would, at least,
necessitate strict regulation of a safe pot supply. It would cut out
organized crime and free up police and justice resources.

It would assure help for those who are sick now, while making it
easier for better marijuana-based medicines -- alternatives to smoking
it -- to be developed for the future.

Looked at that way, the policy our government views as so
compassionate now just seems cowardly by comparison.