1.  What is the Detroit Medical Marijuana initiative and what would it do?

          It is a ballot proposal sponsored by the Detroit Coalition for Compassionate Care that would make enforcement of laws prohibiting the cultivation and possession of marijuana by individuals who have a medical need for the drug the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.  It would also eliminate funding for prosecution under such circumstances from the city budget.

2.  What is the Detroit Coalition for Compassionate Care?

          It is an association of Detroit residents concerned about both the needs of ill people (especially the working poor who lack medical insurance) and current law enforcement priorities in the city.

          The Steering Committee includes: Hon. Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit, State Representative; Hon. George Cushingberry, Jr., Wayne County Commissioner and Detroit clergyman; Robert Fetzer, Wellness House executive director; Hon. LaMar Lemmons, D-Detroit, State Representative; Isaiah McKinnon, PhD., former Detroit police chief; Jeffrey Montgomery, Triangle Foundation executive director; Tom Ness, Jam Rag publisher and Michigan Green Party founder; Eugene Perrin, M.D., Wayne State University school of medicine; Ron Scott, Coalition Against Police Brutality; Leni Sinclair , Detroit artist; Steven Walker , Democratic Party activist.  Congressman (and Michigan gubernatorial candidate) Hon. David Bonior, D-Mt.Clemens has also endorsed the initiative.

3. Does the initiative legalize medical marijuana?

          No.  The Detroit City Charter specifically prohibits the city council or voters through the ballot initiative process from making any ordinance that is contrary to state law.  The proposal would simply make medical use of marijuana (in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner) the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.  Any attempt to legalize or decriminalize use of marijuana – even for medicinal purposes -- would inevitably result in a legal challenge to our ordinance and probable defeat in court.

4. Is there any precedent for this kind of “lowest law enforcement priority” ordinance?

          The Detroit ordinance is based upon a voter initiative passed by the citizens of Mendocino County, California which directed the county sheriff and prosecutor to make the growing of up to 25 marijuana plants (in that instance, regardless of purpose) the county’s lowest law enforcement priority.  The ordinance has withstood legal challenge and been effective.

          The Detroit Coalition strongly believes that Detroit's limited law enforcement resources ought to be focused on fighting serious crime.  Sick people who need marijuana should not be a priority.

5.  Isn't this something that really needs to be decided by the State Legislature?

          Medical exceptions to marijuana prohibition laws have proven to be too politically sensitive for most state legislatures.  Of the eight states that have adopted medical exceptions to marijuana possession laws only one (Hawaii) did so through the legislature.  All the rest were done by direct citizen initiative.

6. What will prevent federal law enforcement agencies, the state police or Wayne County sheriff deputies from coming into Detroit and arresting a medical marijuana user?

Nothing.  Those agencies are not bound by Detroit ordinances.  Those officers could still come into Detroit at anytime and arrest a medical marijuana user.  The proposed ordinance basically takes one level of law enforcement -- the Detroit Police Department -- out of the mix.

However, as a practical matter low level, misdemeanor violations of the law (such as simple possession of small quantities of marijuana) are enforced by local police.  As a result, the legitimate, peaceful (and discreet) medical marijuana user should be able to find relief from their medical problems with a greater degree of safety than currently exists.

7. Why doesn't the ordinance specify which diseases and conditions are legitimate reasons for medical marijuana use?

The medical field and the practice of medicine are constantly evolving, and will continue to do so.  The Coalition firmly believes in the sanctity of the doctor/patient relationship and that it would, therefore, be inappropriate to dictate what is proper or improper medical care with respect to the medical use of marijuana.

8. How can police and prosecutors tell whether a marijuana user really has a legitimate medical need?

Those with a medical need for marijuana will be required to consult with and secure the approval of a doctor or other recognized medical practitioner.  The situation would essentially be no different than determining whether or not an individual has a legitimate medical need for such substances as barbiturates or amphetamines.

9. Isn't this proposed ordinance just a steppingstone to ultimately legalize marijuana and other drugs?

The proposed ordinance is written in plain English and only pertains to medical use of marijuana in consultation with a qualified medical practitioner by making enforcement of marijuana laws under such circumstances the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.

Some Coalition steering committee members do in fact favor ultimately legalizing the peaceful, responsible use of marijuana by adults for any reason whatsoever.  Other steering committee members are adamantly opposed to the legalization of any drugs, including marijuana, for anything except totally legitimate medicinal use.

The purpose of the Detroit Coalition for Compassionate Care is strictly limited to changing the law in Detroit with respect to medical use of marijuana.

10. Won’t this ordinance encourage even greater recreational use of marijuana by children and teenagers?

No, this is a widely held but totally discredited assumption.

In 1996 California voters approved Proposition 215 permitting medical use of marijuana.  A study of teenage marijuana use following the passage of this initiative was commissioned by the United States Office of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and conducted through the auspices of the UCLA Graduate School of Education.

According to the September 6, 2000 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle “the results of that study indicated that although marijuana use rose among high school students in other parts of the country, use actually leveled off in California after passage of the initiative.”  (Emphasis added)

Teenagers, especially, tend to glamorize and be attracted to the proverbial “forbidden fruit.”  As marijuana begins to come out of the closet as an illicit substance in the context of medicine for sick people, it will begin to lose its image as something glamorous and “hip” among young people.  As a result it could actually lead to a decrease in recreational marijuana use among young people.

11. Doesn’t this “send the wrong message” to children and teenagers about marijuana?

        Quite the opposite.  Legally recognizing that marijuana is a medicinal substance for the treatment of some symptoms (such as nausea caused by chemotherapy) and chronic conditions (such as intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma) is precisely the message we need to send.

12. What about “driving under the influence” of marijuana?

The ordinance would not affect these laws.  Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana is and would remain illegal.

13. Aren't there other better, safer, legal drugs available so sick people don't have to smoke marijuana?  What about Marinol, the legal drug in pill form that is a derivative of marijuana and it's active ingredient THC?

Opponents of medical marijuana argue that synthetic substances such as Marinol are the best option.  The facts do not support such a conclusion.

For one thing, attempting to treat nausea (the most frequent indication for palliative marijuana) with a pill can be a “Catch 22.”  Many patients cannot keep the pills down long enough to realize any benefit.

Secondly, a pill is a one-size-fits-all approach. Some patients report the side effect “high” from Marinol is so intense that they are barely able to function.  With smoked marijuana the patient has direct and immediate control over the intake of the drug.  Thus, the patient can stop ingesting the drug when its beneficial effects have been realized and before the side effects of an overdose begin to occur.

Also, as the only marijuana-based drug approved by the FDA, Marinol is under patent and is, therefore, quite expensive.  One 10 milligram capsule currently costs $17.25.  For an AID's patient, for instance, who may need three doses a day, this means a monthly cost of over $1,500.  In Detroit, a city where a quarter of the population is ‘working poor’ with no health insurance, Marinol is prohibitively expensive and is simply not a viable option.  To suggest otherwise, is naive at best -- and cruel, indifferent and elitist at worst.