CALIFORNIA SHOWS WHY MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS DANGEROUS

A decade ago, voters in California approved a proposal to legalize
marijuana smoking for so-called "medical" purposes. Today, even the
proposal's most vocal supporters admit the California law has
resulted in "chaos," "pot dealers in storefronts" and millions of
dollars being dumped "into the criminal black market."

Proposal 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot in Michigan is just like the
California law. While its stated intent, to help people in serious
pain, is well meaning, Proposal 1's vague language, careless
loopholes and dangerous consequences place Michigan communities and
kids at risk. Michigan voters should reject it.

Proposal 1 allows one person to grow and provide marijuana for a
number of other people, as long as the marijuana is kept in a locked facility.

What happens when that locked facility is your neighbor's garage or a
strip mall storefront, as they have in California? Maybe you think
this can't happen in Michigan, but consider this: In North Hollywood,
there are now more pot shops than Starbucks stores, and last week a
security guard was gunned down outside a Los Angeles pot shop.

Everyday, diligent parents and teachers fight a difficult battle to
protect teens from drugs and their influences. Law enforcement
officials in California point to their state's marijuana law as a
cause for the dramatic increase in drug use among high school
students. That's a major reason why groups such as the Michigan
Sheriffs' Association and the Michigan Association of Chiefs of
Police are opposed to Proposal 1.

For doctors and hospitals, those on the front lines of medical care,
Proposal 1 is "bad medicine." For one thing, Proposal 1 doesn't
require a prescription. It not only relies on but promotes smoking as
a delivery mechanism. And, Proposal 1 could result in costly lawsuits
over such things as whether doctors and hospitals must allow patients
to smoke marijuana in a doctor's office or hospital room, despite
every other law banning smoking.

The Michigan State Medical Society, the Michigan Health and Hospital
Association and the Michigan Osteopathic Association all oppose
Proposal 1 because smoking marijuana is not the answer to the
important scientific questions surrounding the effective care of patients.

A legal analysis of Proposal 1 outlines a situation where the worker
next to you on the assembly line or the driver of a delivery van
could smoke marijuana on the job and your employer could do nothing
about it. In fact, if that delivery van driver, or any other driver
under the influence of "medical" marijuana for that matter, hits
another car and injures someone, Proposal 1 may allow marijuana use
as a defense in court.

Lastly, Proposal 1 would leave the regulation of a "medical"
marijuana program up to Lansing to figure out. With Michigan facing
such tough economic times, taxpayers can't afford a new government
bureaucracy to keep track of marijuana users.

Proposal 1 is many things, but above all else it is a law of
unintended consequences. The dangerous implications of its flaws and
loopholes have brought together Michigan's doctors, hospitals,
sheriffs, police chiefs, prosecutors, family groups, and taxpayer
advocates to urge voters to say "No" to Proposal 1.

California's "medical" marijuana proposal brought chaos; Michigan's
proposal brings an opportunity to learn from California's mistake.