CANNABIS BILL MUST ANSWER KEY CONCERNS

Legalizing medical marijuana has come up in the Rhode Island General
Assembly before, but legislators this year seem more willing to give
it a try.

Before they just say yes, however, we think they should devote more
brain cells to some issues and unanswered questions.

Cannabis' benefits for people with certain illnesses are
well-established. The identical medical-marijuana bills in the state
House and Senate cite a 1999 study by the National Academy of
Sciences' Institute of Medicine, saying that the herb has beneficial
uses in treating pain, nausea and other symptoms of certain medical
conditions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week heard testimony in favor of
the bill from nine people, including medical patients, a physician and
the former chairman of Brown University's psychology and neuroscience
department.

The proposed legislation would allow people with specific medical
conditions, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, hepatitis C and multiple
sclerosis, to acquire and cultivate up to 12 plants or 2.5 ounces of
marijuana, and possess paraphernalia for smoking it.

Marijuana is forbidden by federal law, although 10 states allow its
medicinal use. But the bill points out that, according to the U.S.
Sentencing Commission and the FBI, 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are
made under state law. "Consequently," the bill says, "changing state
law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast
majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marijuana."

This is all good so far. But we have some concerns that have not been
addressed in the debate.

Marijuana does have harmful side effects among frequent users. The
popular image of the burned-out pothead is no mistake: The drug clouds
short-term memory, dulls mental alertness and stifles motivation.

To someone suffering from a debilitating disease, such effects are a
negligible price to pay for relief from symptoms. But it would be bad
public policy to send the message that pot is harmless and can be good
for you. It would be all too easy for young, healthy people to justify
smoking it because "even doctors say it's OK."

Legalization of medical marijuana should therefore be accompanied by
an educational campaign that explains the drug's limited therapeutic
uses and discourages recreational smoking.

Unfortunately, publicity costs money, and we'd rather not see this
measure become an expense for the state. Perhaps legislators can come
up with a way to fund an information campaign without using taxpayers'
money.

The bills' sponsors seem to have spaced out on another important
issue: How and where will patients get their pot? How can you take a
controlled substance and decontrol it for some people, but not give
them a way to legally buy it?

Obviously, we don't want sick people patronizing illegal drug dealers,
as some undoubtedly do now. Yet not every patient will have the
ability to securely grow cannabis plants or find an authorized
caregiver who can. The idea of "designated growers" also creates the
danger of pot pushers getting a "primary caregiver" designation from a
qualifying patient to avoid prosecution for their illegal activities.

The law will have to make clear what sources of marijuana will be
legal. This is no simple question.

Courts in California have declared marijuana growers' and buyers'
"clubs" illegal, and medical-marijuana advocates there frequently have
been at odds with law enforcement.

Canada currently allows a small number of patients to buy Health
Canada marijuana that is sent directly to them or their doctors;
British Columbia soon will have a pilot program, modeled on a Dutch
program, that would allow medical users to buy marijuana at
participating pharmacies.

No such system is in place in this country, and Rhode Island likely
will face the same difficulties as other states that legalized before
they rationalized.

We hope General Assembly members will show compassion for those who
would be helped by medical cannabis, and approve legislation that will
allow it. However, more debate and legislative work is needed to avoid
opening the door to new abuses of a substance that, for most of us,
will remain illegal.