ENDORSEMENT: NO ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Oct. 1, 2000 - Coloradans should vote no on Amendment 20, which would
make marijuana available to certain medical patients, including those
with AIDS, glaucoma, or those who suffer from chemotherapy's side
effects.

The ballot measure proposes such a complex approach that even people
who think pot has medicinal value should oppose it.

Amendment 20 would let patients buy marijuana on the existing illegal
market, but make them immune to prosecution. Without a lawful source
for the drug, patients would be forced to participate in what would
still be a criminal enterprise.

In fact, while Amendment 20 touts marijuana's supposed medical
benefits, it doesn't seek to make pot a prescription drug. That
omission could create a consumer nightmare. With all other prescription
medicines, a doctor must write a prescription, which is filled by a
licensed pharmacy and doled out in specific, controlled amounts. This
system works well even with potent, possibly addictive but very useful
medicines such as morphine. And it ensures a high level of quality
control.

However, Amendment 20 evades the usual consumer-protection channels.
Even the need for a formal prescription gets sidestepped. It's thus
uncertain just who would or wouldn't have access to medical marijuana,
or who would monitor the dose and purity of the drug.

Weirdly, the measure simultaneously sets up a new bureaucracy and
creates a potential invasion of privacy. Amendment 20 would have state
government issue cards to anyone authorized to obtain medical
marijuana, with the state health department keeping a registry of such
persons. The registry supposedly would be confidential, but nonetheless
Amendment 20 authorizes state access to now-private medical records.

Many such concerns were known in 1998 when the measure was first
proposed, but supporters got trapped in a legal time warp. Former
Colorado Secretary of State Vikki Buckley had refused to certify the
measure for the ballot, so backers took her to court and won. But the
dispute wasn't resolved in time for votes cast that year to count. Yet
having won the court case, supporters were obligated to stick to the
existing, defective language.

The biggest underlying worry about Amendment 20, however, is the lack
of credible, objective research into whether marijuana really is a
safe, effectual treatment. If future scientific studies prove marijuana
does have medical benefits, then the issue of making the drug available
under controlled circumstances to certain patients should be re-
examined.