STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT POT

Court decision throws into limbo the issue of medical marijuana;
legislation is needed to provide a definition of "primary caregiver'

A CALIFORNIA court decision reminds us of the defects of Proposition 215,
which allows the medical use of marijuana. On Friday, the state Court of
Appeal ruled that San Francisco's Cannabis Cultivation Club could not
legally sell pot because it doesn't fit the definition of a "primary
caregiver," as described in the initiative ballot measure, which was passed
by state voters last year.

Dennis Peron, a proselyte for legalized pot, runs the cannabis club, which
has some 5,000 members. He says he will appeal the ruling to the state
Supreme Court.

In retrospect, Prop. 215 looks to some people like a triumph of compassion
over common sense. This newspaper supported the initiative because we think
it's ludicrous that extremely ill people are denied a medication that
reduces pain and suffering. But since its passage, we have advocated
cleanup legislation, or even a second ballot measure, to fill in the
blanks that the original initiative ignored.

One of the biggest questions is how marijuana should be distributed to sick
people who need it. Peron's answer the cannabis club bothers many law
enforcement officials because it looks a lot like a retail store. And in
the past, the club has abused its mission by selling to unauthorized people
and failing to keep good records.

San Mateo County is considering a proposal by Supervisor Mike Nevin that
would put the county into the marijuana sales business. Pot confiscated by
police would be distributed through health centers or other outlets. For a
number of reasons, we think this is a bad idea.

But the answer is not to let anyone who chooses become a "primary
caregiver." Strong government controls are needed. Prop. 215 is not about
legalizing marijuana. Peron has hurt his own case by suggested that the
initiative is an opening wedge to do just that.

State law is complicated by federal drug statutes, which make possession of
marijuana a crime. Most doctors, for fear of prosecution or losing their
license to practice, will not prescribe marijuana, even for a patient who
is terminally ill.

Only in the last year has the federal government agreed to fund scientific
research to study whether marijuana is effective in controlling pain.
Anecdotal evidence numbering in the tens of thousands says such studies are
nobrainers.

Terence Hallinan, San Francisco's district attorney, raises a good question
about the appellate court ruling. How, he asks, can a sick person's right
to use marijuana be preserved if he or she cannot obtain it?

One response is for the courts to invalidate Prop. 215 entirely. But we
think that would be a mistake. Government in general, and Gov. Wilson
specifically, for too long have shown an obtuseness about medical
marijuana. This is not a "gateway drug," seducing teenagers to try stronger
and more harmful substances. This is not a means for people to drop out of
otherwise productive lives. This is not about indolence or
selfindulgence or dreaminess.

Medical marijuana helps people who are dying of AIDS and cancer.

Yet politics trumped health and science until the people of California
said, "Enough." This bit of sanity shouldn't be blasted away because Prop.
215 is poorly drafted. Fix it.

We challenge the state Legislature and Gov. Wilson to forge a sensible
definition of "primary caregiver" under Prop. 215. The designation
shouldn't condone pot dealers but it must preserve legitimate distribution
of medical marijuana to people who need it.

The point is neither to legalize all marijuana nor to abolish medical
marijuana. The objective ought to be to make sensible rules everyone
accepts. Cutting off medical marijuana, though, is just plain cruel.