REGULATE THE DISPENSARIES, NOT THE PATIENTS

If ever there were an argument against the government having anything to
do with health care, a pending bill that seeks to regulate medical
marijuana is a compelling case to shut Uncle Sam out of the exam room.

State lawmakers are taking up Senate Bill 109, sponsored by state Sen.
Chris Romer, D-Denver, which is a hodgepodge of items meant to straighten
out the mess surrounding the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

State residents need to send a clear message to state lawmakers about some
of the proposed changes reported this week in the Denver Post: Thanks, but
no thanks.

There are two problems state lawmakers are trying to sort out. One problem
is the sudden explosion of so-called "dispensaries" in some parts of town,
where even Starbucks and Subway sandwich shops are far outpaced by pot
shops. The other problem is local governments keeping any and all of the
dispensaries out of their communities, which is the case here in Aurora.

Aurora has argued that since the use of marijuana is not permitted under
federal law, Aurora can't honor a voter-approved, state constitutional
amendment that permits the use of marijuana for medical reasons,
contingent on doctor approval.

The Obama administration, however, said it will defer to states like
Colorado and, at least for now, look the other way to ensure patients
prescribed pot can get it. State voters were clear in their intent in
2004, and some sort of dispensary is a natural and logical delivery of the
drug and the law.

* It's to that end that lawmakers need to give reasonable direction to
cities and counties, making sure that dispensary owners aren't drug or
gang kingpins, nor are they setting up fiefdoms. Treating the business
like liquor stores seems to be a good place to start.

Likewise, voters made it clear that the measure was to provide marijuana
for medicinal uses, not recreational.

But some measures proposed to ensure medicinal use only go too far.

One proposal would require anyone 21 and under to go before a medical
review board to seek approval for the use. Not only would such a system be
patently unfair to patients based solely on their age, the system would be
a massive intrusion into the privacy and medical treatment of citizens. No
such requirement exists for the use of much more addictive and dangerous
drugs; it's ludicrous to create such a system here. Some state lawmakers
are instead proposing that the 21-and-under patient would have to get two
doctors to approve the use of medical marijuana. Same argument here. It's
an unfair and expensive imposition on younger, adult citizens and a huge
intrusion into their private medical treatment.

Other measures seek to detail which conditions warrant the use of medical
marijuana and which ones don't. Since not even the medical community can
agree on the medicinal effectiveness of marijuana, it's highly
inappropriate to throw the question to state lawmakers.

Legislators need to stick to the question at hand: regulating dispensaries
and leave the practice of medicine to professionals.