BE WARY ON MARIJUANA LAW

Lockyer's commission should develop a clear set of guidelines that
specify the conditions for which medical marijuana use is accepted as
a benefit by mainstream authorities; that would give police confidence
in identifying abuse.

When Californians passed Proposition 215 in 1996 to legalize the
medical use of marijuana, then Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren pledged never to
implement the measure, dismissing it as a "disaster" that will cause
"an unprecedented mess." Its status has been further clouded by
adamant federal refusal to recognize the California law and by the
absence of any state guidance to law enforcement agencies.

Now, Lungren's successor, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, has changed the
course of implementing the voter approved initiative. Working with
police chiefs, narcotics officers and medicinal marijuana advocates,
he has promised to find ways to implement what he calls "the people's
will." That sounds like a lot of leeway. The right path for California
lies in more in the center of the debate.

Proposition 215 was a carelessly crafted measure, permitting
physicians to prescribe marijuana not just for serious conditions like
cancer, AIDS and glaucoma, but for "any . . . illness for which
marijuana provides relief." That's a huge loophole inviting illegal
use of marijuana. Even in a medical context, it's reckless. For
instance, marijuana can worsen bacterial pneumonia in patients whose
immune systems have been compromised, and longterm use can cause
neurological harm.

When California voters approved Proposition 215 by a solid 56% to 44%,
it's doubtful they intended to have their state "turn on, tune in,
drop out," as 1960s drug icon Timothy Leary urged. That's why Lockyer
should not hastily implement a proposal from his medical marijuana
advisory commission that would establish a statewide registry of
medical marijuana users. The proposal is modeled after one being used
in the Northern California town of Arcata. In the last month alone,
police have issued about 100 permits for medical marijuana in the town
of 16,000. Arcata looks more like an example of the law's evident
problems than a model for implementation. Lockyer's commission should
first develop a clear set of guidelines that specify the conditions
for which medical marijuana use is accepted as a benefit by mainstream
authorities, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the
American Public Health Assn. and the American Academy of Family
Physicians. That would give police confidence in identifying abuse and
reduce the time wasted trying to figure out what the law allows.

Lockyer also should make good on his promise to visit Washington this
month to lobby the Drug Enforcement Administration to make an overdue
change: moving marijuana from the Schedule 1 class of dangerous
substances like heroin and LSD that are devoid of medicinal value, to
Schedule 2, a class of potentially dangerous and addictive drugs like
morphine and cocaine that can be legally prescribed by physicians with
strict state oversight.

This month, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat,
introduced a bill that would do just that, but the bill needs support
from centrist politicians to go anywhere. A study to be released on
Wednesday by the federal Institute of Medicine is expected to find
that some medical uses of marijuana benefit patients; the study should
prompt some movement toward Frank's legislation.

Lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento need to separate their 1960s
notions of pot from medical marijuana, a drug physicians should be
able to prescribe in carefully controlled and we emphasize
controlled circumstances.