Medical marijuana

Whether a group gathering signatures for a referendum on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes gathers enough signatures is uncertain, but at least it will allow Maine to debate the question without the distractions of the usual pro-pot fanfare.

Two groups with very different marijuana referendum questions are trying to get enough signatures to put their questions on the ballot. One, the Maine Vocals, is familiar to the state; the other, a branch of Americans for Medical Rights (AMR), is new. Where the AMR question is focused on the use of marijuana for specific illnesses, the Vocals question would allow doctors to prescribe it “for any illnees for which marijuana can provide relief.” Where the AMR question limits the amount of marijuana a patient can possess to six plants and 1 1/4 ounces, the Vocals question allows for unlimited supply.

Maine Vocals has been advocating for marijuana as medicine for years, but its message has been cut by its participation in such events as the annual pot rally Hempstock. It has further diluted its effectiveness by associating itself with a variety of legalization proposals for marijuana that have not gone anywhere. The fact that its founder, Don Christen, has been convicted of trafficking in marijuana has not helped either. The result is that the group has a credibility problem in addition to offering a referendum question open to abuse.

That’s too bad because the marijuana-as-medicine question is likely to find some support in this state. Lawmakers early this year proposed creating a legal defense for people arrested for marijuana possession. Those arrested could defend themselves by proving that the drug was used to treat the effects of diseases such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma or multiple sclerosis. There is ample anecdotal evidence that pot is effective for managing nausea and pain in some cases.

No surprise then that this local chapter of AMR, called Mainers for Medical Rights, has appeared. The parent organization was successful last year in helping California pass a referendum that allows the use of marijuana to relieve symptoms in cases of glaucoma, AIDS, and from the effects of chemotherapy. A similar question passed in Arizona. Unfortunately, the response from the White House at the time, which threatened sanctions against doctors who perscribed marijuana, needlessly harmed what could be a useful debate on the question.

The debate has returned, this time in Maine — with an organization that has tailored its question to specific medical conditions and with a track record that excludes other legalization questions. It’s pot without the baggage.