THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DEBATE: CON

In 2000, Colorado voters approved Article XVIII of the Colorado
Constitution legalizing medical marijuana. For more than six years,
Coloradans and law enforcement have suffered the consequences of an
ill-conceived and confusing referendum. Unfortunately, the ballot
measure passed because the proponents of medical marijuana played
upon people's compassions and emotions and not scientific medical research.

It's important to clarify the distinction between "smoked marijuana"
and pharmaceutical THC. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, has
shown the potential to alleviate certain medical conditions. However,
there are no scientific studies that support the use of smoked
marijuana for medical treatment in the U.S. Proponents of medical
marijuana are reluctant to admit that THC is readily available in
prescription form, including Marinol, which is safer and more
effective than smoked marijuana.

In 1999, the Institute of Medicine, a component of the National
Academy of Sciences, released a landmark study reviewing the possible
medical properties of marijuana. The proponents of medical marijuana
often cite this study as a basis for legalization. The study found a
potential therapeutic benefit for THC and recognized the need for
additional study on its medical uses. What the proponents of medical
marijuana don't tell you is that the IOM concluded "there is little
future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication."

If someone were involved in a serious accident and admitted to the
hospital, a competent physician would prescribe morphine for the
pain. Following the logic of medical marijuana proponents, rather
than prescribing morphine the physician would instead have the victim
smoke opium.

Lacking any proven medical benefit to smoking marijuana, what is the
true purpose of this amendment? The proponents of medical marijuana
disingenuously use the tragic stories of truly ill people to advance
the proponents' real motive of legalizing marijuana. In 2000, The New
York Times interviewed Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith
Center, an organization dedicated to the legalization of drugs.
Responding to criticism that the medical marijuana issue is a trojan
horse for drug legalization, Nadelmann stated, "Will it help lead
toward marijuana legalization? ... I hope so."

This is also obvious at the local level. Some of the groups that were
on the medical marijuana bandwagon in 2000 are the same groups that
are now pushing for marijuana legalization. In 2005, Denver voters
passed Initiative 100, which legalized the possession of small
amounts of this drug. In 2006, an attempt was made to legalize
marijuana at the state level. Both Initiative 100 and Colorado's
medical-marijuana amendment conflict with state and federal law, respectively.

The wording of these laws is intentionally vague, creating conflicts
meant to undermine existing drug laws, create loopholes, and
hamstring law officers from enforcing drug statutes.

Recently in Garfield County, the sheriff's office seized more than
100 cultivated plants and made three arrests, since the crime is a
serious felony under Colorado law. Currently, a medical marijuana
registrant may possess up to six plants. After photographing and
taking samples of the plants, they were destroyed, standard practice
in law enforcement. But a section in the current medical marijuana
amendment mandates that law enforcement keep the plants
alive. Because one of the suspects was a medical marijuana
registrant and the plants were destroyed, the case against the
suspect was dismissed even though she was in clear violation of both
federal and state law.

Colorado residents certainly did not intend to have law-enforcement
officers engage in marijuana cultivation.

Other questionable loopholes exist as well:

. If a registrant is on probation for being a drug dealer and subject
to drug testing, is that person allowed to use medical marijuana?

. If a registrant or provider lives within a school zone and
possesses marijuana, is this a violation of the law?

. If an employer randomly screens for drugs and an employee is a
registrant who tests positive for marijuana, can the employee be
fired? What if the employee is a surgeon, police officer or pilot?

Proponents of medical marijuana claim these ambiguities could be
overcome by applying fewer controls, eventually leading to total
legalization. I side with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who
said, "Medicine by regulation (through the Food and Drug
Administration) is better than medicine by referendum."

A more reasonable approach is to recognize the smokescreen of medical
marijuana, repeal the amendment, and engage the community in more
honest dialogue about proponents' true purpose: to legalize a harmful drug.