Pubdate: Wed, 29 Oct 2008
Source: Traverse City Record-Eagle (MI)
Copyright: 2008 The Traverse City Record-Eagle
Contact: http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_story_128175513.html
Website: http://www.record-eagle.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1336
Cited: Proposal 1 http://stoparrestingpatients.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

EDITORIAL: 'NO' ON PROP 1, 'YES' ON 2

The following are Record-Eagle endorsements for Michigan's two 
statewide ballot proposals.

Proposal 1 -- Medical Marijuana

Despite years of anecdotal evidence that smoking marijuana can ease 
symptoms related to glaucoma, cancer, AIDS and other conditions, the 
bottom line remains: There is no scientific evidence that it works 
or, as important, that it works as well or effectively as other 
existing treatments.

That fact -- not to mention troubling language in the proposal itself 
- -- is reason enough to urge a "No" vote on Michigan Proposal 1, known 
as the Medical Marijuana issue.

The proposed law would:

. Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients 
suffering from cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other 
conditions -- all subject to approval by the Department of Community Health.

. Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana 
for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

. Require Community Health to establish an identification card system 
for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to 
grow marijuana.

Amid all the regulations, however, is a loophole that would allow 
registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert 
medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any 
marijuana-related prosecution.

That's a deal-breaker that opens the door for almost anyone to assert 
protections. What is the point of forcing people to register with a 
doctor and meet other restrictions if anyone can claim Proposal 1 as a defense?

Despite a host of wild Internet-fueled claims, the proposal would not 
lead to storefront pot shops like some that have sprung up in 
California after passage of a similar ballot proposal there. Some 
official opposition has also stretched the truth, such as White House 
claims that such proposals are "a clear strategy to ... legalize drugs."

But what counts here is that science does not support the claims of 
Proposal 1 backers and the loophole in the proposal is simply too great.

Vote "No" on Proposal 1.

Proposal 2 -- Stem-Cell Research

Mostly lost in the blizzard of misleading ads being run by opponents 
of Michigan's Proposal 2 is a simple but profound fact: Only 
embryonic stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed could be used 
for research.

Despite the bizarre claims of all kinds of evils, including 
human/animal cloning and more, that simple truth remains. If these 
cells are not used for research they will end up in the trash.

That fact -- and the fact that the vast majority of scientists and 
researchers say embryonic stem cells could someday lead to amazing 
cures -- make it easy to urge a "Yes" vote on Proposal 2.

The proposal itself is clear: Expand the use of human embryos for any 
research permitted under federal law, but only if: the embryos are 
created for fertility treatment purposes; are not suitable for 
implantation or are excess cells; otherwise would be discarded; and 
were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.

The proposal would also prohibit anyone from selling or purchasing 
embryos for stem-cell research and block the Legislature or local 
politicians from enacting laws to prevent, restrict or discourage 
such research.

The list of false claims made by opponents seems endless. Proposal 2 
would not in any way change Michigan's ban on human cloning, despite 
repeated claims to the contrary. It would not cost taxpayers a single 
dollar. It would not lead to animal-human cloning. It is not related, 
despite a vile ad hinting otherwise, to medical experiments in the 
'50s in which doctors did not treat 400 people infected with syphilis.

Opponents often repeat that stem-cell research is legal in Michigan, 
but they leave out the fact that researchers are limited to just two 
lines of cells approved by the federal government.

It is truly unfortunate that the opposition campaign (funded mostly 
by the Catholic Church and Michigan Right To Life) has gone to such 
disturbing lengths to fight Proposal 2.

What voters need to remember above all is the simple truth -- if 
these cells are not used for research, they will be destroyed. There 
is too much to gain by using these items designated for the Dumpster 
to throw away this opportunity.

Vote "Yes" on Proposal 2. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake