VOTERS SHOULDN'T DECIDE MEDICAL VALUE OF DRUG

Bob Leppen wrote on May 11 that he believes marijuana should be
legalized for medical reasons. He implied that many very sick patients
need it, and their efforts to obtain it render them felons. He also
advanced his view (with which I agree) that "weed" should be legal,
and is probably less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. And, he noted,
importantly (and correctly) that the jails would be less
overcrowded.

All sound points, but I disagree with the legalization of marijuana
for medical uses for three reasons:

1. A purified form of marijuana (dronabinol) is already available in
FDA approved form in hospital formularies, for treating nausea in
cancer and other very sick patients and for stimulating appetite.

2. Many physicians believe that there are other agents available in
the formulary that do those jobs as well as, or better, than this pure
marijuana product.

3. Marijuana as "weed," if it is to be used as a medicine, should
meet the same criteria that any other medication must meet in order to
be approved. These criteria involve purity, established safety and FDA
approval.

When "the people," empowered by the ballot or the Legislature, are
given the power to approve -- or disapprove -- one or another
medication or medical measure, using criteria likely to be less than
completely objective and scientific, the risks of unfortunate,
unintended consequences tend to become significant.

The question of the general legalization of marijuana, as alcohol and
tobacco are now legal, is a totally different matter, and has sound
arguments in its favor that should stimulate legitimate and vigorous
discussion. Confusing this discussion with one involving the care of
sick patients, however, should be avoided. They are not the same issue

Dr. Lee A. Bricker

Kalamazoo