LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS ARE WRONG ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA

As chief authors of the bipartisan Medical Marijuana Bill moving
through the Legislature, we felt compelled to respond to Dakota County
Attorney Jim Backstrom's misleading column regarding our bill ("Law
enforcement groups oppose it, and here's why," March 20).

It was extremely disappointing to note that Backstrom began his column
by asserting that he and the groups he represents will never agree to
sit down with us to negotiate a bill that meets their concerns. This
is unfortunate, because in other states, law enforcement has been
supportive of the legalization of medical marijuana. They got involved
in the process early on and worked with lawmakers to craft a system
that would be workable. Because of their involvement, other states'
medical marijuana systems have been successful.

Instead, in Minnesota, law enforcement comes before legislative
committees and authors editorials vilifying our efforts to provide the
seriously ill with relief from their pain and suffering.

Backstrom criticizes our bill by saying that medical-marijuana
patients in Minnesota would have access to more marijuana than they
needed. In reality, the possession limits offered under our bill are
reasonable and identical to the limits established by Rhode Island,
Maine and Michigan. Eligible patients would be monitored through a
registration system, and people who misuse their registration card
would face felony prosecution -- a stricter penalty than the
misdemeanor offense for illegal possession of the drug.

It is also not true that our bill does not provide effective law
enforcement oversight. Law enforcement would have access to all of the
Health Department's registered patient cardholder information.

Also, we feel the primary oversight by the Health Department is
appropriate because this is an issue concerning medicine. Just as
doctors do not hand out traffic tickets, police should not be
dispensing medication.

It's unfortunate that Backstrom is dismissive of patients who suffer
from diseases other than cancer, AIDS or MS. Under our bill, only
those with "intractable pain" -- which is statutorily defined as the
most serious pain a person could experience that cannot be medically
alleviated -- could be prescribed medical marijuana by a doctor.

It's extremely misleading for Backstrom to note that some medical
organizations have not "endorsed" medical marijuana. In addition to
the more than 2,700 Minnesota doctors and nurses who sent us a letter
indicating their support for our bill, the American College of
Physicians, the Minnesota Nurses Association, the American Nurses
Association and others have positions in support of medical marijuana.

Finally, law enforcement expresses opposition to medical marijuana
because it has not been approved by the FDA. This argument is weak, as
the FDA has never bothered to study medical marijuana. It also granted
approval to Vioxx, a drug whose side effects ended up killing
thousands of people.

The bottom line is that medical marijuana has worked well in the 13
states where it is legal. In those states, the rule of law still
prevails, but the efforts of the seriously ill and dying, who are only
trying to ease their suffering, are decriminalized. There is no reason
to believe that our great state would be any different.