LEGISLATURE MUST ADDRESS MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

When the medical marijuana law went before state voters in 2008, this
newspaper editorialized against it. We were not unsympathetic to the
real pains that some patients feel can best be mitigated through the
use of marijuana. But we agreed with some law enforcement officials
that this proposal was fraught with dangers that could lead to easier
access for a substance whose general use is still illegal.

But the law was passed by a comfortable margin. The people spoke, and
their intent was clear. Nonetheless, the state Legislature has spent
years failing to provide the proper guidelines for implementing the
law. This has put local communities, including several in Livingston
County, in a bind. They want to respect the intent of voters, but
they still want to prohibit illegal activity.

It's long past time for Lansing to do its job, as pointed out in this
editorial that we are reprinting from the Lansing State Journal,
where it was first published.

It is time for the state Legislature to produce a medical marijuana
law. No more excuses, please.

The chaos created by the Legislature's inaction is unacceptable,
wasteful and unfair.

Courts, prosecutors, police, local government and, yes, users find
themselves scrambling to accommodate the 2008 voter initiative that
unequivocally authorized the use of marijuana to treat medical conditions.

The medical marijuana language voters approved intentionally was
vague and ambiguous. The law was largely written by the Marijuana
Policy Project, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that wants to
reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana use.

This was no surprise, and considering the actions of voters in other
states, neither was approval of the measure in Michigan. Calls to the
Legislature to pass a medical marijuana law ahead of the sloppy
initiative were ignored. No longer is this acceptable.

The Legislature serves to enact laws. When the people of Michigan
approved the use of medical marijuana, they expected the Legislature
to help sort through the confusion rather than enable it. Instead,
lawmakers, in another example of term-limit-induced dysfunction,
ignored the issue.

Because medical marijuana was approved by a voter initiative, a
comprehensive law will require a three-fourths vote of approval from
the Michigan House and Senate. It can be done, but it will take
political courage by some lawmakers who disapprove of any marijuana use.

One option for Michigan is to adapt or adopt medical marijuana
legislation passed in other states. Colorado passed a constitutional
amendment in 2000 allowing patients with medical issues to treat
their conditions with marijuana; two comprehensive laws were passed
and signed in 2010.

In the broadest sense, they regulate the marijuana business and
doctors who recommend the drug to patients. The laws impose
meaningful limits on dispensaries: Local governments can ban them,
they can't be within 1,000 feet of a school or church, and owners
must be Colorado residents.

Physicians prescribing marijuana must be treating patients, have done
a physical exam and be available for follow-up care. Diseases
qualifying for medical marijuana include cancer, HIV/AIDS and
glaucoma. There are limits on possession, rules for issuing
identification cards and fees for licenses. The law even requires
payment of sales tax.

Some may not like the law and what it allows. But certainly, they can
understand it. This is what the people of Michigan want and need from
their legislators.