REVISED MED-POT PLAN IS A RELIEF

An earlier version of a medical-marijuana bill was a stunning "gimme"
to industry, but wholesale changes make it palatable.

The reworked version of a medical-marijuana-regulation bill walks back
quite a few of the problems in the original draft.

Thank goodness.

House Bill 1043, pending in the state legislature, was a disaster as
first introduced. It loosened restrictions on criminal backgrounds for
dispensary owners. It also grandfathered existing dispensaries within
buffer zones around schools.

We were shocked by what was in that first bill. Rep. Tom Massey, the
bill's sponsor, seemed to let the writing of the original version get
away from him.

However, Massey, a Poncha Springs Republican, turned that ship around
last week when he substituted a completely rewritten bill. Some - not
all, but some - medical-marijuana advocates were not happy with the
changes.

It's interesting to see how the folks lumped in as medical-marijuana
advocates are creating factions among themselves. Those who are truly
interested in pursuing medical marijuana as a treatment, as opposed to
those who are hoping for backdoor legalization, should be pleased with
the revised bill.

It sets a reasonable way for doctors with restrictions on their
licenses to petition the Colorado Medical Board for permission to
recommend medical marijuana for patients.

As it stands, doctors with restricted licenses are prohibited from
recommending medical marijuana. That was an understandable regulation,
contained in a bill passed last year, when you consider the Wild West
atmosphere that ensued prior to regulation.

Doctors who had been barred from writing prescriptions saw the
medical-marijuana boom as a bonanza. It was common knowledge that all
one had to do to get a medical-marijuana card was complain of chronic
pain and fork over a few hundred dollars to one of these doctors and
you'd be good to go.

However, some medical-marijuana proponents made the persuasive
argument that last year's legislation, which barred all doctors with
any restriction, was draconian. Doctors with physical disabilities who
have been restricted from some professional duties, for example, might
very well be able to recommend medical marijuana.

Such a doctor would have to appeal to the Colorado Medical Board,
which would consider the nature of the restriction and whether it
relates to pain-management judgment or a doctor's ability to diagnose
a debilitating condition.

We think that's a good compromise that will not unreasonably restrict
the pool of doctors who can recommend medical marijuana.

The key to an efficient medical-marijuana regulatory scheme is to
have rigorous rules that are not so constricting as to keep people in
need from getting relief. It's a work in progress, and we would not be
surprised if this bill were not the last chapter in that book.