As of January, 20 states have legalized medical but not recreational marijuana, and nine states (plus Washington, D.C.) have further legalized it for recreational purposes. Insofar as we can use these states to predict the consequences of State Question 788, let me offer a few details and suggestions.

First, according to the Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, states that have approved medical marijuana did not see a rise in marijuana consumption among teens and adults 12-25. Why is that? Most high school and college students know, by word of mouth, where to buy marijuana. By contrast, adults 26 and older have far less access and tend to be more risk averse. Hence, there is an average rise in use from 5.1 percent to 6.5 percent among adults 26 and older in medical marijuana states, which is roughly on par with their medical marijuana enrollment statistics: Arizona (1.7 percent), Connecticut (0.7), Hawaii (1.4), Montana (2.1), etc.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that our legislators should simply let SQ 788 pass without enacting any controls. Given that proponents of SQ 788 base their arguments on marijuana's medical benefits, they should be willing to support legislative action that more carefully distinguishes between legitimate medical use versus pretexts for recreational use. The challenge is in finding the right way to do this.

The approach taken by Senate Bill 1120 is to list specific medical conditions such as neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis based spasticity, and nausea from chemotherapy. The difficulty with this is three-fold. First, it does not fully cohere with the findings of current research (e.g. Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia). Second, it does not provide for the results of emerging research (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, ALS). Third, it has our government interfering in our medical treatment. While it is appropriate for legislators to set standards for safety and efficacy, they should allow medical science, the judgment of physicians and the needs of patients to determine care.