MEDICAL MARIJUANA WRONG AS STATE ISSUE

At issue: Approval of a state petition to allow medical marijuana
use.

Our view: The issue will go to state voters in November, but action is
wasted unless federal officials change their guidelines.

Should marijuana be legalized in Michigan for medical purposes? Voters
most likely will field that question in November and, despite sympathy
for the ill, they should just say no.

Michigan's Board of State Canvassers approved petitions Monday that
would allow patients to grow and use small amounts of marijuana for
personal use. Patients would need a doctor's approval, and would also
need to obtain a registry card to show law enforcement officials.
Despite those restrictions, about 496,000 residents signed petitions
in support. Only 304,101 valid signatures were needed, so support may
indeed be as high as the 70 to 80 percent approval claimed by some
backers.

It isn't hard to see why. Many patients battling cancer, glaucoma,
multiple sclerosis and even AIDS report that cannabis, the drug in
marijuana, relieves their suffering without nausea. Marinol, a
synthetic version of THC (the main active ingredient in cannabis) is
more expensive, often harder to take and many patients report it to be
less effective than marijuana.

In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine
reviewed scientific studies of marijuana's therapeutic uses, and
concluded that "there are some circumstances in which smoking
marijuana is a legitimate medical treatment." A year ago, the state
Democratic Party passed a resolution at its convention that doctors
should not be sanctioned for recommending marijuana use, and that
"seriously ill people should not be subject to criminal sanctions for
using marijuana" if recommended by a doctor.

However, there are at least two key problems with that resolution --
and with the Michigan initiative.

First, the initiative would give patients no practical protection.
Federal law prohibits marijuana use. California passed a similar law
that was struck down in 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court after federal
agents raided the home of a California grower. The court's position
that locally grown produce for personal use is subject to federal
regulation as "interstate commerce" is questionable, but it's a
position consistently upheld for more than 60 years.

Consequently, Michigan's prospective state law would have no more
effect than local ordinances already on the books in Ann Arbor,
Detroit, Ferndale, Flint and Traverse City.

That may be why Michigan lawmakers are not expected to take up the
proposal. Spokesmen for both House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford
Township, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, have
said not to expect legislative action. If no action occurs within 40
days, the measure goes to the November ballot.

Besides futility, voters will have another reason for voting "no."
Legal use of drugs in America legitimately requires approval by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The fact that "medical marijuana"
would need to be approved by a doctor confirms that cannabis is indeed
a drug. So far, the FDA has been blocked by the Drug Enforcement
Agency from conducting cannabis research trials. As misguided as the
DEA policy may be, it's a poor practice for government to sanction
drug use without FDA approval. Marijuana should meet the same
standards as other pharmaceuticals before being responsibly prescribed
by physicians.

The matter of medical marijuana deserves a closer look. State
initiatives, however, fail to use resources in a productive manner.
They actually contribute to a policy inconsistent with those for other
drugs. Medical marijuana may end up on Michigan's state ballot, but
that won't matter until federal officials feel the heat.