As chief authors of the bipartisan Medical Marijuana Bill moving through the Legislature, we felt compelled to respond to Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom’s misleading column regarding our bill (“Law enforcement groups oppose it, and here’s why,” March 20).

It was extremely disappointing to note that Backstrom began his column by asserting that he and the groups he represents will never agree to sit down with us to negotiate a bill that meets their concerns. This is unfortunate, because in other states, law enforcement has been supportive of the legalization of medical marijuana. They got involved in the process early on and worked with lawmakers to craft a system that would be workable. Because of their involvement, other states’ medical marijuana systems have been successful.

Instead, in Minnesota, law enforcement comes before legislative committees and authors editorials vilifying our efforts to provide the seriously ill with relief from their pain and suffering.

Backstrom criticizes our bill by saying that medical-marijuana patients in Minnesota would have access to more marijuana than they needed. In reality, the possession limits offered under our bill are reasonable and identical to the limits established by Rhode Island, Maine and Michigan. Eligible patients would be monitored through a registration system, and people who misuse their registration card would face felony prosecution — a stricter penalty than the misdemeanor offense for illegal possession of the drug.

It is also not true that our bill does not provide effective law enforcement oversight. Law enforcement would have access to all of the Health Department’s registered patient cardholder information.

Also, we feel the primary oversight by the Health Department is appropriate because this is an issue concerning medicine. Just as doctors do not hand out traffic tickets, police should not be dispensing medication.

It’s unfortunate that Backstrom is dismissive of patients who suffer from diseases other than cancer, AIDS or MS. Under our bill, only those with “intractable pain” — which is statutorily defined as the most serious pain a person could experience that cannot be medically alleviated — could be prescribed medical marijuana by a doctor.

It’s extremely misleading for Backstrom to note that some medical organizations have not “endorsed” medical marijuana. In addition to the more than 2,700 Minnesota doctors and nurses who sent us a letter indicating their support for our bill, the American College of Physicians, the Minnesota Nurses Association, the American Nurses Association and others have positions in support of medical marijuana.

Finally, law enforcement expresses opposition to medical marijuana because it has not been approved by the FDA. This argument is weak, as the FDA has never bothered to study medical marijuana. It also granted approval to Vioxx, a drug whose side effects ended up killing thousands of people.

The bottom line is that medical marijuana has worked well in the 13 states where it is legal. In those states, the rule of law still prevails, but the efforts of the seriously ill and dying, who are only trying to ease their suffering, are decriminalized. There is no reason to believe that our great state would be any different.

Steve Murphy of Red Wing represents District 28 in the Minnesota Senate. His e-mail address is sen.steve.murphy@senate.mn. Tom Rukavina of Virginia represents District 5A in the Minnesota House of Representatives. His e-mail address is rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn. Both are DFLers.