MEDICAL MARIJUANA DESERVES STATE TEST

This Is a Legislative, Not Constitutional, Decision.

The effort to allow marijuana's legal use by seriously ill
Minnesotans isn't new at the Capitol, or to these pages. Proponents
have been making their case since at least 1992, with this newspaper's support.

But the accounts of disease victims and their loved ones about the
drug's benefits pack an emotional punch that's still fresh. No one
could listen to Joni Whiting of Jordan tell legislators on March 24
of her late daughter's facial melanoma misery, relieved by no drug
other than marijuana, and not be moved.

Over the years, mounting evidence has attested to marijuana's
effectiveness in relieving pain, nausea, muscle spasms and glaucoma
symptoms. So have success stories from the 13 states in which
marijuana has been decriminalized for use by the sick.

Norm Stamper, a former Seattle chief of police, came to St. Paul last
month to attest to Washington state's experience since
decriminalizing marijuana's medicinal sale and use in 1998. Though he
spent 40 years fighting criminal drug activity, he came to support
the drug's decriminalization for the sick when two people close to
him were wracked with pain that only marijuana eased.

In Stamper's state and eight others, medical marijuana became law via
a ballot question, not legislative action. That approach often limits
the authority of elected officials to regulate who can prescribe
marijuana as medicine, who can receive it, for what conditions, in
what quantities, and from which sources. While Stamper reported
reduced crime and illicit drug use in Washington and other medical
marijuana states, he recommended that Minnesota policymakers keep the
issue in their own hands.

Washington's way of legalizing medical marijuana should not be
Minnesota's -- but it could be. Supporters of the decriminalization
bill are understandably frustrated after nearly two decades of futile
effort to change state statutes, even as polls have shown that a
strong majority of Minnesotans share their position.

This year, it appears that Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto threat is the
biggest remaining impediment to statutory change. Legislative
opposition has diminished in recent years. But no governor's
signature is required for a constitutional amendment to go before the
voters. That's why supporters -- including the bill's chief Senate
sponsor, Red Wing DFLer Steve Murphy -- say that if this year's bid
is blocked, it will return as a constitutional amendment in 2010.

That could be a winning strategy with unfortunate consequences.
Lawmakers saw, as recently as last year with the outdoors-and-arts
dedicated sales tax amendment, that when they fail to respond to
voters' desires, voters are quite willing to use the Constitution to
make policy. Those same lawmakers are seeing this year how
constitutional inflexibility impedes their ability to adapt to
changing state circumstances.

Minnesota would be better served by gubernatorial acquiescence to a
limited bill of temporary duration -- in other words, a pilot project
- -- and appointment of a task force to monitor the results and
recommend permanent policy. That idea is likely behind a move in the
House to sunset medical marijuana authorization after two years,
forcing a legislative review in 2011.

Government has considerable experience in striking a workable balance
between the need to protect the public from toxic substances and the
desire to ease the affliction of the sick. With that background plus
the experience of 13 other states to guide them, Minnesota's leaders
should be able to craft a medical marijuana policy that upholds the
public's interest in both safety and compassion.