MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW CLARIFICATIONS MAY BE BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES

Some medical marijuana advocates and lawmakers opposed to what they
see as free-wheeling distribution of the drug are coming at each
other from extremes in the debate over handling what Michigan voters
in 2008 declared a medicine.

The best outcome probably is somewhere in the middle.

The problem is the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is much too hazy,
with state Department of Community Health rules enabling the act not
much clearer.

Confusion over what the law and the rules allow is what has caused
communities such as Flint, Linden, Grand Blanc Township, Fenton and
others to enact moratoriums on medical marijuana dispensaries.

They want clarification from the state on what's allowed, and what is not.

Medical marijuana dispensaries, which popped up like seedlings all
over the state in recent years, are mentioned nowhere in the
initiative that voters approved, nor in the administrative rules.

Yet the act and the rules do allow state-registered caregivers to
collect compensation from patients for which they are registered to
supply marijuana. Each caregiver may grow up to 12 plants each for a
maximum of five patients. The act states that those transactions
shall not be considered a sale.

Yet, some in the state Capitol have sneaking suspicions that not all
medical marijuana users really need the stuff. And they worry about
the dispensaries.

They are right to be concerned. Voters approved the medical use of
marijuana; they did not OK the recreational use of the drug.

Yet rulings and proposals we've seen spring up Lansing this summer
seek to clarify the law with restrictions that may go beyond what
voters approved.

Attorney General Bill Schuette recently issued an opinion that
outlaws the sharing of marijuana between patients and others. That
restriction is one shared by all prescription drugs, but was not in
the original act.

On the other hand, the state Legislature is considering proposals
that would strictly define the patient-doctor relationship when a
doctor recommends marijuana as a treatment, and so makes it possible
for people to get their medical marijuana registration cards from the state.

Further definition of doctor-patient interaction isn't needed. The
act already says that a physician must examine a patient's medical
history and perform a medical examination before recommending marijuana use.

That's roughly the same kind of exam a patient might receive at a
walk-in medical clinic, for example. Demanding that doctors and
patients have a "traditional" relationship, as in long-term, is
unrealistic, old-fashioned and unworkable. Not everyone sees a doctor
on a regular basis, debilitating condition or not.

For their part, a lot of medical marijuana patients and advocates
worry about any changes to the original law.

They shouldn't get their wish, because the law needs clarification.
But they should be assured that patient access to medical marijuana
as defined in the original act is assured.

The law, for example, states that marijuana should be grown in a
locked and secured facility, such as a closet. But it doesn't have
anything to say about plants grown in fenced, secure enclosures
outdoors. It says that stems seeds and roots don't count as
marijuana. But what about new sprouts in a grow facility, is each one
a "plant?"

The law that voters approved by a landslide of 63 percent is way too
hazy and appears to have too many loopholes. Those gaps need to be
filled through rigorous and public debate.

Until then, many would-be medical marijuana dispensaries will have to
wait in communities where leaders are hesitant to approve zoning that
would allow them.

Municipalities, police agencies, patients and doctors all should
breathe a sigh of relief once the Medical Marihuana Act is clarified.

Patients want the drug, their doctors may say it could help them, and
a majority of voters said that's OK. Lansing lawmakers should
concentrate on enabling the voters' wishes, not restricting them.