CITY SHOULD WORK WITH WHAT'S BEHIND DOOR NUMBER 3

In nine days the city will hold a public hearing on a question that
is generating almost as much discussion as the proposal to build a
coal-fired power plant near the city.

The question is: To what extent should the growing and distribution
of medical marijuana be regulated by the city?

The hearing and eventual action by commissioners should be limited to
that simple question.

The hearing and eventual action should notventure into the propriety
or efficacy of medical marijuana, the motives of medical marijuana
advocates, or the evils of the drug culture. Montana's voters spoke
- -- loudly -- on those issues five and a half years ago when they
approved the use of medical marijuana by a 24 percent margin.

That it has taken more than five years for state and local
governments to find a way to implement the will of the people speaks
to an official reluctance to deal with it at all.

To some extent that's understandable -- like most voter-passed laws,
the initiative passed 62-38 in 2004 is not particularly well written
or all-encompassing. For example it is largely mute on questions of
marketing or distributing the drug.

In recent months a number of pot-growing or -selling operations have
established or sought around the state and in Great Falls under the
auspices of the voter-passed law.

Also proliferating have been "clinics" aimed at certifying people
with ailments and symptoms for which marijuana could be a palliative
agent.

These activities have been treated differently in different cities.
In February, Great Falls commissioners declared a 90-day moratorium
on establishing marijuana businesses while the Planning and
Community Development Department studied the options.

This past week the department presented three options for
consideration by the Zoning and City commissions:

* Ban medical marijuana businesses altogether, based on federal law
banning possession of marijuana, period.

* Extend the moratorium a year to allow for more study.

* Pass an ordinance proposed by planners permitting growing marijuana
in industrial zones only, and permitting shops in typical business
zones.

The first option should not be chosen. As we said, voters have
approved medical marijuana, and the federal government has indicated
it would not enforce its Controlled Substance Act provisions against
medical pot.

There might be some merit in the second option -- extending the
moratorium -- if only because it would allow time for the Legislature
to fine-tune some of the initiative's provisions (see box at left).

But that assumes the sharply divided Legislature would muster the
political will to make changes without throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.

That leaves alternative three, allowing the businesses to proceed,
but only in certain areas.

Given the voters' stated preferences, as well as the fact that it's
already been half a decade with no progress on the matter, we'd urge
proceeding, cautiously, with that alternative.

See how it develops, and step in if abuses or other problems
arise.

It would amount to a test for the providers and caregivers -- that
which is given can always be taken away.