If Cleveland-area insurance tycoon Peter B. Lewis has his way, Ohio voters in November of next year will get a chance to legalize marijuana for medical use.

The chairman of Progressive Corp. has put out a request for proposals from political operatives to craft a ballot proposal, shepherd it on to the ballot and lead the campaign to pass it. Lewis has not indicated how much he is willing to spend on such a campaign, but the billionaire has long been committed to changing U.S. drug laws and has spent an estimated $40 million to $60 million of his own money over the last three decades in support of various legal and electoral efforts to do just that.

In 2002, Lewis helped bankroll a campaign to amend the Ohio Constitution and steer nonviolent drug offenders into treatment. Aggressively opposed by a bipartisan coalition, the amendment was decisively defeated. But beginning with California in 1996, voters or legislators in 16 states have approved proposals to legalize marijuana use by individuals with a physician's authorization. In an April 2009 Ohio Poll, 73 percent of those responding supported adult access to medical marijuana.

But while Lewis and his advisers contemplate another Ohio effort, the medical marijuana movement suddenly faces unexpected opposition from the Obama administration. Two years ago, the Justice Department advised U.S. attorneys and law enforcement agencies not to waste limited resources pursuing cases against individuals in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. That stance was hailed in many quarters -- including on this editorial page -- as a victory for common sense.

Then this spring, federal prosecutors from Maine to Washington began sending letters to state officials, warning that anyone involved in supplying marijuana to authorized patients could be subject to prosecution. That led Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire to veto a bill to establish licensed marijuana dispensaries, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to delay the implementation of his state's new medical marijuana statute.

This new federal tactic targets what skeptics have long said was the soft underbelly of state-level medical pot laws: the fact that "prescriptions" can't be filled at a pharmacy. To fill that void, a loose network of growing cooperatives and clubs sprouted in many communities. Some were decidedly casual about whom they served; in response, about a half-dozen states began to regulate the outlets.

If Lewis is wise, he'll pursue an initiative that has tight definitions of who can get permission for marijuana, under what circumstances and from what kind of organization. But that may all be for naught if the Justice Department sticks to its newly defined hard line.

It is time for Congress to revisit federal drug laws and at least remove marijuana from the mostly tightly regulated list of illegal substances.

Give states some leeway to decide what's right for residents who suffer from cancer, chronic pain and other ailments for which standard pharmaceuticals offer little relief.