LEVIN, YES; PROPOSALS, NO

VOTERS HAVE ONE statewide election and two proposals to decide Nov. 4.

In the election, for U.S. Senate, Democratic incumbent Carl Levin of
Detroit faces Jack Hoogendyk, a Kalamazoo-area Republican state representative.

This fight, like so many Levin has waged, isn't fair.

Levin, 74 and 29-year incumbent, is in an enviable power position.
Power in campaign funds -- $7.7 million to Hoogendyk's $234,000. In
political experience -- former Detroit City Council member, appellate
defender and assistant attorney general. He's the Senate Armed
Services Committee chairman and a leader of his national party.
Hoogendyk, 53, has held his state rep post five years.

Levin has earned prestige and respect among colleagues. He's honest
to a fault, trustworthy, blunt, carries the torch for Michigan and
the auto industry and has an impeccable political reputation.

No kryptonite exists to bring him down. One wonders why Hoogendyk
agreed to take a bullet for his party in this one.

The News strongly endorses CARL LEVIN.

Proposal 1, a ballot initiative, would allow severely ill people to
buy, grow and use marijuana to ease pain, nausea, appetite loss and
the like. A dozen states have similar laws.

Sounds good on the surface. Marijuana -- medicinally or not -- does
ease the pain. But this isn't like prescribing morphine. In fact, no
prescription is necessary. Only a doctor's "recommendation." No
dosage specifications exist because the Food and Drug Administration
hasn't signed off on it.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm and Republican Attorney General
Mike Cox oppose it. Other reputable stakeholders -- state medical
societies, law enforcement groups and parental organizations -- had
no chance to vet this thing and so oppose it, too.

This comes down to unintended consequences -- pot shops and "smoking
clubs" as in California? More street drugs? People and companies
turning their backs on a state with a loose and poorly written drug
law? Michigan has enough problems.

The Saginaw News says NO to Proposal 1.

Proposal 2, which would amend the state Constitution, eases
Michigan's severe restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

Lots of controversy here. Backers say it could put Michigan squarely
into the science mix for diabetes, Alzheimer's and spinal injury
cures. Outside of altruism, it could mean jobs and money for a state in need.

Churches are against embryonic stem cell research, saying it uses and
destroys human life. Ethicists fear human cloning. Some say adult
stem and umbilical cord blood research is sufficient. And others say
the proposal's straightjacket wording wouldn't allow lawmakers to
regulate stem cell research.

This is a complex science. Overall, we have no quarrel with embryonic
stem cell research. It's cutting edge with great curative and
economic promise. And, we have no quarrel with opponents' religious
beliefs, ethical fears or semantic concerns.

Our argument is with puttering with the state's foremost legal
document. Amending it makes it so, so difficult to un-amend if it
doesn't work out. Witness the Headlee and term limit amendments that
have hamstrung this state into near political and fiscal paralysis.
This bodes more of the same.

Responsibility here lies with a spineless Legislature, not the Constitution.

The News says NO to Proposal 2.