The effort to allow marijuana's legal use by seriously ill Minnesotans isn't new at the Capitol, or to these pages. Proponents have been making their case since at least 1992, with this newspaper's support.
But the accounts of disease victims and their loved ones about the drug's benefits pack an emotional punch that's still fresh. No one could listen to Joni Whiting of Jordan tell legislators on March 24 of her late daughter's facial melanoma misery, relieved by no drug other than marijuana, and not be moved.
Over the years, mounting evidence has attested to marijuana's effectiveness in relieving pain, nausea, muscle spasms and glaucoma symptoms. So have success stories from the 13 states in which marijuana has been decriminalized for use by the sick.
Norm Stamper, a former Seattle chief of police, came to St. Paul last month to attest to Washington state's experience since decriminalizing marijuana's medicinal sale and use in 1998. Though he spent 40 years fighting criminal drug activity, he came to support the drug's decriminalization for the sick when two people close to him were wracked with pain that only marijuana eased.
In Stamper's state and eight others, medical marijuana became law via a ballot question, not legislative action. That approach often limits the authority of elected officials to regulate who can prescribe marijuana as medicine, who can receive it, for what conditions, in what quantities, and from which sources. While Stamper reported reduced crime and illicit drug use in Washington and other medical marijuana states, he recommended that Minnesota policymakers keep the issue in their own hands.
Washington's way of legalizing medical marijuana should not be Minnesota's -- but it could be. Supporters of the decriminalization bill are understandably frustrated after nearly two decades of futile effort to change state statutes, even as polls have shown that a strong majority of Minnesotans share their position.
This year, it appears that Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto threat is the biggest remaining impediment to statutory change. Legislative opposition has diminished in recent years. But no governor's signature is required for a constitutional amendment to go before the voters. That's why supporters -- including the bill's chief Senate sponsor, Red Wing DFLer Steve Murphy -- say that if this year's bid is blocked, it will return as a constitutional amendment in 2010.
That could be a winning strategy with unfortunate consequences. Lawmakers saw, as recently as last year with the outdoors-and-arts dedicated sales tax amendment, that when they fail to respond to voters' desires, voters are quite willing to use the Constitution to make policy. Those same lawmakers are seeing this year how constitutional inflexibility impedes their ability to adapt to changing state circumstances.
Minnesota would be better served by gubernatorial acquiescence to a limited bill of temporary duration -- in other words, a pilot project -- and appointment of a task force to monitor the results and recommend permanent policy. That idea is likely behind a move in the House to sunset medical marijuana authorization after two years, forcing a legislative review in 2011.
Government has considerable experience in striking a workable balance between the need to protect the public from toxic substances and the desire to ease the affliction of the sick. With that background plus the experience of 13 other states to guide them, Minnesota's leaders should be able to craft a medical marijuana policy that upholds the public's interest in both safety and compassion.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Star Tribune
Contact: Star Tribune
Copyright: 2009 Star Tribune
Website: Medical Marijuana Deserves State Test
But the accounts of disease victims and their loved ones about the drug's benefits pack an emotional punch that's still fresh. No one could listen to Joni Whiting of Jordan tell legislators on March 24 of her late daughter's facial melanoma misery, relieved by no drug other than marijuana, and not be moved.
Over the years, mounting evidence has attested to marijuana's effectiveness in relieving pain, nausea, muscle spasms and glaucoma symptoms. So have success stories from the 13 states in which marijuana has been decriminalized for use by the sick.
Norm Stamper, a former Seattle chief of police, came to St. Paul last month to attest to Washington state's experience since decriminalizing marijuana's medicinal sale and use in 1998. Though he spent 40 years fighting criminal drug activity, he came to support the drug's decriminalization for the sick when two people close to him were wracked with pain that only marijuana eased.
In Stamper's state and eight others, medical marijuana became law via a ballot question, not legislative action. That approach often limits the authority of elected officials to regulate who can prescribe marijuana as medicine, who can receive it, for what conditions, in what quantities, and from which sources. While Stamper reported reduced crime and illicit drug use in Washington and other medical marijuana states, he recommended that Minnesota policymakers keep the issue in their own hands.
Washington's way of legalizing medical marijuana should not be Minnesota's -- but it could be. Supporters of the decriminalization bill are understandably frustrated after nearly two decades of futile effort to change state statutes, even as polls have shown that a strong majority of Minnesotans share their position.
This year, it appears that Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto threat is the biggest remaining impediment to statutory change. Legislative opposition has diminished in recent years. But no governor's signature is required for a constitutional amendment to go before the voters. That's why supporters -- including the bill's chief Senate sponsor, Red Wing DFLer Steve Murphy -- say that if this year's bid is blocked, it will return as a constitutional amendment in 2010.
That could be a winning strategy with unfortunate consequences. Lawmakers saw, as recently as last year with the outdoors-and-arts dedicated sales tax amendment, that when they fail to respond to voters' desires, voters are quite willing to use the Constitution to make policy. Those same lawmakers are seeing this year how constitutional inflexibility impedes their ability to adapt to changing state circumstances.
Minnesota would be better served by gubernatorial acquiescence to a limited bill of temporary duration -- in other words, a pilot project -- and appointment of a task force to monitor the results and recommend permanent policy. That idea is likely behind a move in the House to sunset medical marijuana authorization after two years, forcing a legislative review in 2011.
Government has considerable experience in striking a workable balance between the need to protect the public from toxic substances and the desire to ease the affliction of the sick. With that background plus the experience of 13 other states to guide them, Minnesota's leaders should be able to craft a medical marijuana policy that upholds the public's interest in both safety and compassion.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Star Tribune
Contact: Star Tribune
Copyright: 2009 Star Tribune
Website: Medical Marijuana Deserves State Test
