The Legislature had a lot of good reasons to reject the citizen-initiated bill legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. The one given — that voters should decide this by referendum — isn’t among them.

Referendum is a valuable, important tool in representative democracy, especially when used for issues of conscience when the will of the majority does not trample the rights of the minority. The extent to which recreational drugs should be legalized or controlled may someday be such an issue. The issue here, however, isn’t what people should or should not be able to do in their spare time in the privacy of their homes. This is about safe, effective medicine and good science. That’s a matter for the laboratory, not the voting booth.

There is evidence, including compelling first-person testimony, that marijuana can relieve the nausea and pain that often accompany treatments for cancer, AIDS and other devastating diseases. It is a shame that lawmakers, state and federal, have not been more committed to funding the research that can validate those claims, determine appropriate conditions for use and develop effective, smoke-free, measured-dose delivery systems.

It is a greater shame, truly shameful, that pro-pot advocates use the suffering of these disease victims to promote their cause. Their longstanding argument that smoking marijuana is a harmless, repercussion-less recreation has been shredded — chronic pot smokers exhibit a variety of physical and mental-health problems, pot is the main gateway kids take to other, stronger, drugs. The tactics — antics, really — of the pro-legalization side are likely the primary reason lawmakers have not been more willing to fully fund the research and testing that marijuana or any other potential medication must undergo to protect consumers from harm and false hopes. Bypassing the rigorous review that brings safe and effective drugs to market would create a tremendous loophole in a process that determines what is good medicine.

It is understandable that the Legislature showed no interest in approving the bill that now goes to referendum. It is a bad bill; based upon unsubstantiated claims of benefit; vague in its definitions, vaguer still in its protections from misuse. The provision allowing patients and their loosely defined “care givers” to grow marijuana in an unregulated and uncontrolled way, is a recipe for mischief; pot would be as common as zucchini.

The Legislature could have proposed a competing, substantially more sound measure that would have gained the support of patient advocates, but now it is probably too late. Absent a bill-writing miracle, an ill-conceived competing measure now would likely lead to a run-off between a bad bill and a worse one. This is not a new issue. For years, disease victims have been claiming significant symptom relief from marijuana. For years, the Legislature avoided taking any action, lest they be labeled pro-pot. Now, an issue that should be decided by informed lawmakers with the advice and counsel of scientists, physicians and law enforcement will be decided by voters who must make a political decision about compassion.