MARIJUANA RULING ADDS TO CONFUSION

Government, Courts Need to Honor Wishes of Voters

In 2008, voters in Michigan clearly indicated they wanted marijuana as
an option to treat medical conditions.

In 2011, the state still hasn't respected the wishes of its citizens
and elected officials should be held accountable for subverting the
voters' intent.

The dithering reflects distaste for medical marijuana in all forms by
Michigan's political elites and law enforcement agencies. The state
legislature in three years has failed to craft workable laws and
policies for regulating marijuana. And court decisions have only
confused the matter.

Last week the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that medical marijuana
cannot be sold through private shops, in effect saying the 2008 law
and the state's public health code does not allow people to sell pot
to each other even if they have state-issued marijuana cards. The
three judges issuing the decision were Joel P. Hoekstra, Christopher
M. Murray and Cynthia Diane Stephens.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette was on board immediately.
"This ruling is a huge victory for public safety and Michigan
communities struggling with an invasion of pot shops near their
schools, homes and churches," he said. But what about a reasonable and
accessible way to make marijuana available? Schuette says he doesn't
know how to do this.

The Appeals Court specifically challenged the issue of selling pot --
an obvious transaction required to provide marijuana to sufferers who
legally are entitled.

There is no dispute that the poorly drafted law doesn't address
so-called dispensaries. But the law states quite clearly that
qualified people can possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and possess
up to 12 plants. It is naive and disingenuous to suggest that some
means of exchange wasn't intended by voters.

In Ingham County, Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III has proceeded
cautiously in response to the court ruling and prodding by Schuette.
Acknowledging the city of Lansing has allowed medical marijuana
businesses to apply for licenses, Dunnings rightly reasoned that the
licensed dispensaries have reason to believe their actions -- and
business operations -- are legal.

Still throughout the state, dispensaries providing marijuana began
closing immediately, stranding patients who use the drug to deal with
debilitating conditions.

Clearly the compassion for those suffering exhibited by the people of
the state is not shared by the political establishment.