FLAWED, BUT NOT FATALLY

To hear Gov. Bill Owens tell it, Amendment 20, the "Medical Marijuana
Initiative," is really just a sort of "Drug Dealers' Full Employment Act."

That's going overboard, but Owens and the group Coloradans Against
Legalizing Marijuana do have a legitimate point: The initiative all but
assures that, at least for first-time users, the source of the drug will be
illegal dealers.

So we agree that the amendment is not particularly well-crafted. But in all
their drug-war inspired bluster (Owens has declared that the initiative
will not pass "in Colorado — not on my watch...") opponents forget that
despite flaws, the measure's simply about compassion.

The amendment would decriminalize the use of marijuana for patients
suffering from diseases — some terminal — such as cancer, AIDS, multiple
sclerosis and glaucoma.

It would allow patients who have received a physician's authorization to
register with the state to possess and use up to six plants or two ounces
of the herb. Patients would not be able to use the drug in public places or
operate a vehicle, and employers would not have to accommodate its use in
the workplace.

Patients could use their registered status to avoid criminal prosecution
for use and possession, but would be subject to laws against distributing
the drug to others.

The measure's major flaw is that it doesn't even address the question of
distribution. Unless patients happened to stumble upon a wild cannabis
plant in a ditch somewhere, they would have to make their initial
acquisition illegally, since even marijuana seeds are banned under federal
law. Presumably thereafter a patient could avoid this awkward situation by
growing his or her own plants.

Opponents, which include the American Medical Association and the Colorado
Medical Society, also point out that smoking marijuana carries its own
health risks, and that regulated medication containing a synthetic version
of marijuana's active ingredient, THC, is available by prescription.

But proponents note that the drug does not have to be smoked: It can be
inhaled as a vapor, eaten or drunk as a tea. They argue that condemning the
drug because of a delivery system is a bit like saying patients shouldn't
receive intravenous morphine because that's how junkies take heroin. And
for those suffering severe nausea and vomiting, using THC in pill form
obviously would be a challenge.

Owens and others claim that "marijuana isn't medicine," but the Institute
of Medicine has reported that marijuana can be effective for the relief of
some symptoms, and the New England Journal of Medicine has editorialized in
favor of using the drug in certain situations. An expert panel at the
National Institutes of Health has concluded that marijuana can relieve the
nausea associated with chemotherapy, increase the appetites of AIDS
patients and relieve painful pressure caused by muscle tumors and glaucoma.

Ultimately, it's hard to deny that this is something of a "message"
initiative, and that many of its proponents support the general
legalization of marijuana. But the amendment, flawed as it is, is
sufficiently limited that those who fear full-blown legalization need not fret.

And how much danger is there, really, in letting a terminal cancer patient
ease his or her symptoms? Rather than "send the wrong message" to children,
the amendment would actually clarify that marijuana is a real drug, and not
to be trifled with.

And who among us really wants to see an AIDS patient dragged from his or
her home by police simply for trying to ease the pain and symptoms of the
disease?

We urge a vote of Yes on Amendment 20.