3 choices, including one from Brad Bradshaw, the man who would be medical marijuana king

MIssouri is on the verge of becoming the 32nd state to legalize medical marijuana.

But, of course, we Missourians have to make it difficult.

Three versions of medical marijuana will be on the statewide ballot Nov. 6.

One is sponsored and intimately linked to Brad "333-3333" Bradshaw, the Man who would be Medical Marijuana King of Missouri.

Since I'm a columnist, I am going to give you my opinion on what the best measure is and why you should only vote for one of the three proposals.

None alters federal law, which still makes marijuana possession, sale and cultivation a federal offense. And none protects someone who uses or possesses marijuana for non-medical purposes.

In my view, you should vote yes on Amendment 2, which is sponsored by a group called New Approach Missouri. It's the best of the three.



Need more info before you vote? Check out our voter guide for all your answers.

Amendment 2 is an amendment to the Missouri Constitution. It has numerous endorsements, including groups such as the Missouri Epilepsy Foundation.

It would tax marijuana at 4 percent and spend the $18 million in expected annual taxes and fees on veterans programs and would cost the state $7 million in annual operating costs.

The proposal should generate $6 million annually for local governments.

It puts regulatory authority for licensing, cultivation, testing and sale with the Department of Health and Senior Services.

It is the only one of the three that allows for "home grow," in which a patient could grow up to six marijuana plants and a caretaker could grow up to 18 plants.

Patients must have a prescription from their doctor and caregivers must have a state-issued identification card.

ANSWERS:Have questions about your medical marijuana votes in Missouri?

You should vote no on Amendment 3, which like Amendment 2 is a constitutional amendment.

This is the one sponsored by Bradshaw, a Springfield lawyer and doctor who has loaned the campaign at least $1.5 million.

Bradshaw said Thursday that the measure has no endorsements.

"Because no one is making money off it," he said.

Bradshaw's measure goes far beyond medical marijuana.

It would make Bradshaw — at least temporarily — the Big Kahuna of what he would call the Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute.

The goal of the measure is noble. It's nothing less than curing cancer and other currently incurable diseases.

In this proposal, the majority of funds from the cultivation, manufacture and sale of marijuana would be spent on creating what Bradshaw says would be a world-class cancer research center in Missouri.

It would be independent, without state oversight.

If passed, the measure would give the governing board bonding authority to build a new campus that would be anywhere from one square mile in size to 36 square miles in size.

Bradshaw recently said he did not want to locate this center at an existing site, such as Washington University in St. Louis, and does not want it beholden to politicians of any stripe.

As a result, it relies heavily on the benevolence and good sense of Bradshaw.

The governing board would have nine members. The first set of nine would be selected by Bradshaw, each with a salary equal to the Missouri Supreme Court chief justice, which currently is about $180,000.

Bradshaw would have only a temporary, unpaid role in setting up the institute. But there is no set time limit on when he would be removed.

The measure is worded so whoever holds the position must be licensed to practice both medicine and law in Missouri, as Bradshaw is.

It's overkill, to me — like the guy who went to buy a kayak and came back with a yacht.

Missouri does not need a new research center in order for a doctor to prescribe marijuana to a patient with cancer.

We already have countless top-notch centers trying to cure cancer in the state and nation. And the measure places far too much power in the hands of Bradshaw.

I didn't like the measure on paper, and after meeting Bradshaw last week for the first time, I like it even less.

I'll explain in a moment.

MORE:3 Missouri medical marijuana proposals differ in taxing, regulation

You should vote no on Proposition C.

Only because Amendment 2 is clearly the best proposal.

Proposition C would amend Missouri laws, not alter the state constitution, and impose a 2 percent tax on the retail sale of marijuana for medical purposes.

The funds from the license fees would go to the state's Division of Liquor Control to administer the program and would also be used for veterans' services, drug treatment, early childhood education and public safety.

This measure gives great control to local government bodies that don't want sites for cultivation, manufacture and sales.

It's sponsored by a group called Missourians for Patient Care.

It's a solid attempt to bring medical marijuana to Missouri.

Here's why I suggest you vote no on it.

Looks like all three will pass

Polling indicates all three measures will pass with over 60 percent of the vote, according to Chip Sheppard, a spokesman for Amendment 2.

If that happens, either of the two constitutional amendments would trump Proposition C.

If both constitutional amendments pass, the one with the most yes votes — not the highest margin of victory — would become law.

I see two major problems with Proposition C.

First, its version of the medical-marijuana program would be subject to the vagaries of annual state funding. Second, I support home grow.

If you have epilepsy or cancer, for example, I believe you should be able to grow the six marijuana plants allowed with Amendment 2 — once your doctor has prescribed medical marijuana.

OPINION:This November, not all medical marijuana efforts are created equal

Many states with medical marijuana allow this, Sheppard says.

However, from Bradshaw's perspective, home grow is the major reason to vote against Amendment 2 and for his Amendment 3.

“Polls show that once Missourians find out there is home grow they are against it," Bradshaw says. "Home grow is a loser.”

Bradshaw spoke Thursday night at a gathering sponsored by the Springfield Metropolitan Bar Association at the Springfield Brewing Company. The topic was the three medical marijuana proposals.

POKIN AROUND:Neighbors say Ozark Mill project is not necessarily great for them

Sheppard spoke on behalf of Amendment 2, and Bradshaw championed Amendment 3. No one spoke on behalf of Proposition C.

I read up on the measures earlier that day. I was aware Bradshaw was upset with the News-Leader because we had not explained to his satisfaction in prior coverage that he considers "home grow" the equivalent of "recreational" use of marijuana.

In fact, last week Bradshaw ran an ad on billboards criticizing the paper for just that.

He is convinced that once people realize that Amendment 2 allows home grow, they will vote against it.

He said at Thursday's gathering that he believes home grow opens the door to not only recreational use but to the narco-trafficking of marijuana.

Sheppard called that nonsense. He said no state that has allowed home grow for medical marijuana has gone back to eliminate or restrict it due to drug-trafficking concerns.

Bradshaw also said he sees a "loophole" in Amendment 2, which limits a patient to six plants in a locked location and a caretaker — who might be assisting multiple people — to 18 plants in a locked location.

Bradshaw asked: What if they have multiple locked locations?

POKIN AROUND: Molested by a priest at 13, Branson West man says he lives with resentment

In addition, Bradshaw made the point that Amendment 2 goes beyond a list of acceptable uses of medical marijuana — which includes cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Tourette's syndrome, intractable migraines and other illnesses.

Amendment 2 falls short, he says, because it includes language that doctors may also prescribe medical marijuana for "other chronic, debilitating, or other medical conditions."

It's the open-endedness of "other" that concerns him.

“This is recreational, make no mistake about it," Bradshaw said.

He asked an attorney present: “John, do you have hay fever? I can get you marijuana for that.”

Bradshaw's proposal, on the other hand, has a similar list of ailments — but his measure would expand that list only to ills that have been shown scientifically to benefit from medical marijuana.

And that research and science would have come from where?

The Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute he wants to create.

In other words, the research institute would have to sanction medical marijuana for — in Bradshaw's example — hay fever before your doctor could prescribe it for hay fever.

MORE:This November, not all medical marijuana efforts are created equal

(Story continues below)

Bradshaw won't talk to me

Bradshaw's measure also would keep a close eye on physicians who, in his view, might over-prescribe marijuana.

It would prohibit his fellow doctors from writing more than 25 percent of their total prescriptions for medical marijuana or deriving more than 25 percent of their gross income from seeing medical marijuana patients.

In my view, Bradshaw wants to take supervision out of the hands of doctors and put it into the hands of his new research institute.

Last week, Sheppard suggested that if Bradshaw's proposal became law that Bradshaw might use his newfound power and position to lean on companies interested in getting the financially lucrative licenses to grow, make or sell medical marijuana in Missouri.

ELECTION SURVIVAL GUIDE:What Greene County voters should know

Bradshaw might, according to Sheppard, remind such applicants that he has made $1.5 million in loans — not donations — to his campaign and would appreciate some help in repaying it.

I asked Bradshaw, out of fairness, to address that.

But before he answered, he had a question for me:

"Are you going to include information on home grow in your story?" he asked.

"I probably will," I said.

"I tell you what," he said. "You write your story first and then I might talk to you."

Then, the man who would be king gathered his papers and left.

POKIN AROUND: It was John O'Day's widow who built Elfindale Mansion

These are the views of News-Leader columnist Steve Pokin, who has been at the paper 6½ years, and over his career has covered everything from courts and cops to features and fitness. He can be reached at 836-1253, spokin@gannett.com, on Twitter @stevepokinNL or by mail at 651 Boonville Ave., Springfield, MO 65806.