DOCS' HASTY PROPOSAL ON LEGALIZING POT

So what happened to "do no harm"?

Our question is prompted by a puzzling position taken by the
California Medical Association. At its annual convention this month,
the state's largest doctors group dismissed marijuana as little more
than a folk remedy that may actually pose health risks. But, they
said, let's legalize pot anyway and figure out if there are any
problems later.

As evidenced by the convoluted Board of Supervisors debate this week
on revising Sonoma County's medicinal marijuana ordinance, California
has made a mess of the issue. So it's easy to understand why doctors,
among others, are frustrated. Nevertheless, we think the medical
association is skipping over some basic science and jumping to a
faulty conclusion.

Dr. Donald Lyman, a state health official who wrote the new CMA
policy, said it's "an open question whether cannabis is useful or
not." Agreed.

"That question can only be answered once it is legalized and more
research is done," Lyman told the Los Angeles Times. "Then, and only
then, can we know what it is useful for." Here we part ways.

It's much more sensible to do the research before plowing ahead with
legalization. CMA is unquestionably correct in asserting that federal
officials have hindered research efforts, and if its provocative new
position helps remedy that problem, so much the better. But
simultaneously legalizing recreational use of marijuana isn't
necessary to address that issue.

CMA tacitly acknowledges as much in its report on the subject by
separating its recommendations to treat marijuana the same as alcohol
for regulatory purposes and to remove it from the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration's list of drugs with no medical value.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of marijuana's medicinal value,
and we're sympathetic to that position, having supported Proposition
215. Rescheduling marijuana would clear many of the obstacles delaying
the research needed to test the evidence.

If there were a consensus about marijuana's medical value - or that
it's no more harmful than alcohol - full legalization might make
sense. But, as the CMA report notes, there's no such consensus.

As for its medical utility, "current research says the medical
indications for cannabis are very limited," the report says, adding
that standards are lacking for such basics as proper dosages, what
conditions respond to treatment with marijuana and whether an inhaler
or other delivery devices would be most effective.

Regarding recreational use, the report cites warnings from the
National Institutes on Drug Abuse about respiratory problems, anxiety
and heart attacks for long-term users as well as the impacts of
second-hand smoke. Those, too, should be fully addressed prior to
legalization.

Underlying CMA's new position is concern about the pressure felt by
its members. Doctors are caught between patients asking for
recommendations and a federal law that prohibits them from prescribing
marijuana. No doubt, doctors are keenly aware of the federal crackdown
on marijuana clubs and prosecutors' recent warnings to big growers.

Now is the time for research and cooperation between state and federal
authorities to address conflicting laws, so a science-based decision
is ultimately possible.