BOTH SIDES: RISKS FAR OUTWEIGH BENEFITS FROM 'MEDICAL' MARIJUANA

This year at the Legislature we're at it again, engaged in what has
become the annual debate about "medical" marijuana.

The stage has long been set. On one side you have a group of people
wanting to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, and on the other
you have every legitimate group in our state representing law
enforcement. Very soon our elected representatives will have to
choose a side. They will decide on what type of Minnesota they want.

You have a very loosely written piece of legislation that, if passed,
would clearly hamper law enforcement's ability to enforce marijuana
laws. Laws on both the state and federal level prohibit the
possession and sale of marijuana. If legalized for any purpose, it
will put us in conflict with the feds.

In addition, it creates penalty provisions for unlawful cultivation,
distribution and possession of the drug that are much less severe
than existing statutes.

The proposal gives the Commissioner of Health the sole responsibility
to regulate this new bureaucracy and excludes the Commissioner of
Public Safety with any oversight role. The very agency best suited to
help regulate this new industry will be sidelined.

The proposal does not limit the use of marijuana to treating patients
confronting a terminal illness, but instead would allow many to
access it including for the treatment of pain. Don't believe that it
is designed only for those that are in the final stages of their life
finding some relief from a "joint." That is not what the bill says.

The facts are that marijuana is a drug that is associated with
violent crimes such as robberies and assaults. Many have and will
resort to almost anything to get their hands on it. Families and
caregivers of the sick could easily become victims of yet another
illness called crime.

Legalizing it for medical purposes will create a perception among
many, especially our children, that marijuana is a good thing, when
we all know that it is not. It is the most widely abused controlled
substance in our state.

If as a state we are really serious about trying this, then I can
assure you that a better, more carefully written bill could be put
together that does a far better job than the one being considered in
the Legislature.

Law enforcement and prosecutors have paraded before committees of the
Legislature where this proposal was heard, consistently telling our
policy makers that the proposal was seriously flawed and how it would
have a dramatic affect on drug business in our State.

They pointed out flaw after flaw from a public safety standpoint, the
very things they are the experts on. They did not challenge the total
lack of medical science to support that marijuana has any medicinal
qualities, or that doctors can prescribe many other legal drugs to
address the pain people with debilitating diseases normally encounter.

Law enforcement stuck with their script, which as law enforcement
professionals was to point out realistically the things that will
result if passed.

To counter Minnesota's law enforcement experts, the proponents
brought in a former chief of the Seattle police department who in
December 2004 wrote an editorial in The Seattle Times wherein he
announced that "I favor legalization, and not just of pot but of all
drugs, including heroin, cocaine, meth, psychotropics, mushrooms and LSD."

Here he is brought in to St. Paul to testify in support of medical
marijuana. I sincerely hope no one was influenced to support this
bill based on anything he said. As a people, I don't believe that his
direction is the way we want to go in Minnesota. It gives one pause
as to why those advocating this selected him to testify as their "law
enforcement expert."

At the end of the set, some voted to side with public safety, but
more voted to roll the dice and give it a try.

It is difficult for me to predict the outcome of how the Legislature
handles this. I can tell you to simply ask any cop you know and the
decision is an easy one for them. They would tell you they should
vote it down. If they had the chance to be in St. Paul, they would
tell the Legislature the very same thing that their colleagues have
been saying at each committee.

Don't pass this bill. The risks are too high.