VOTERS HAVE LIMITS ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

When the "Cannabis Caravan" arrives in Lansing later this month, it
will be the most colorful example of a troubling trend:

A desire by some to push the margins on Michigan's medical marijuana system.

There's no doubt many who voted in 2008 for medical marijuana would
favor complete legalization. Such proponents are risking a political
backlash against medical marijuana itself.

Recent events might lend themselves to overconfidence on the issue.
Proposal 1 in 2008 gained slightly more than 3 million "yes" votes
in Michigan, compared to 1.79 million "no" votes. Michigan is now
one of 14 states that has legalized medical marijuana. As recently
as 1997, only California had a medical marijuana law.

This year, California may set another precedent, becoming the first
state where voters agree to full legalization of the drug.

Attitudes toward marijuana have shifted in Michigan and elsewhere.

But this debate is not over.

Polling in Michigan has found full legalization to be a loser. Also,
the particulars of the 2008 success are instructive.

The ballot language was written in a way that rather large questions
were left unanswered. For example, how are registered users supposed
to obtain an initial supply or seeds to exercise their rights under the law?

The ballot prop said nothing about storefront dispensaries,
marijuana social clubs or traveling teams of doctors doing medical
screenings for marijuana use.

It did ask voters to:

"Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana
for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility."

"Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers
to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any
prosecution involving marijuana."

This is language designed to lead voters away from any thought of
full legalization and its potential consequences. It's also designed
to emphasize a private, personal relationship between a patient and
his or her doctor.

As a spokeswoman for this caravan conceded to an LSJ reporter,
getting a doc's note from the caravan is no guarantee of coverage.
"The state has the right to deny or reject any applications," said
Tiffany Klang last week.

So what's the point here? Are there really credible cases where
people with serious medical conditions - with symptoms that medical
marijuana might ease - can't get a proper review from their own doctors?

The state is now adjusting to its 2008 decision - a decision the
state can reverse, if voters don't like what they see.