Doing government by constitutional amendment is inefficient at best.

The give and take of compromise, the ability of the public to influence decisionmakers, the "glitch bills" filed in the next session to fix unintended consequences are not available for an amendment.

That is why the Times-Union has taken a conservative approach to amending the state’s constitution.

Amendments should only be passed when the Legislature is unable or unwilling to do its job.

That is why this newspaper supported the amendment that requires a 60 percent threshold for passage. It passed, ironically, with 59 percent of the vote.

In fact, 10 of the last 14 constitutional amendments failed to reach 60 percent.

Yet the newest crop of four amendments on the November ballot are polling past the 60 percent mark.

The best known of the proposals is Amendment 2, which gives citizens the right to be treated with medical marijuana.

A similar proposal was narrowly defeated two years ago with 57.6 percent of the vote. This newspaper opposed it for two reasons:

N It seemed poorly crafted and left open the door for the use of marijuana for conditions that didn’t deserve it — basically as a back door to recreational use.

N The Legislature had just finished approving the limited use of medical marijuana, "Charlotte’s Web," for a limited condition.

This time, for this amendment, the conditions have changed.

The new amendment is better crafted. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court approved the wording of this amendment by a 7-0 vote; it was 4-3 last time.

And the debilitating conditions that justify its use are more thoroughly spelled out in the amendment: cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or other comparable conditions in which a physician believes the medical use of marijuana would outweigh the risks to the patient.

The amendment also was crafted with the abuses of pill mills in mind so there is an extra step for approval.

Once a physician makes a recommendation, the patient can’t go directly to a dispensary. The patient must obtain an ID card from the Department of Health.

The amendment also makes it clear that physicians who abuse the law still are liable for current malpractice laws.

A minor cannot receive it without first having written consent from a parent and guardian along with the physician’s written recommendation.

The question arises: Why don’t physicians write prescriptions for this?

The reason: Federal law considers marijuana a Class 1 drug.

Nevertheless, 23 states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws in effect.

We would encourage the Florida Department of Health to strictly regulate and start slowly.

This amendment deserves support.

Solar amendment

Amendment 1 has produced some nasty controversy given the mundane ballot title "Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice."

The amendment ostensibly puts the right to own or lease solar equipment in the constitution, gives government the right to regulate solar and those who do not choose to own solar are not required to subsidize those who do.

It sounds dull. In fact, one wodners why it’s even necessary.

So what’s the controversy?

The Florida Supreme Court only approved the ballot language by a 4-3 vote. One of the minority votes, Justice Barbara Pariente, said the language is misleading.

For instance, the word "subsidize" is open to all kinds of interpretations.

She said the amendment would put the status quo in the constitution, which does appear to be the case.

The real story behind this amendment is it is an answer to a competing pro-solar amendment that did not obtain enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, but may be on the ballot in two years.

That pro-solar amendment would give third party companies the right to own and lease solar.

Utility companies are concerned about what this will do to the integrity of the electric grid, while skeptics say they are just trying to maintain their monopoly status.

In any case, all of this controversy is a perfect reason to to oppose the amendment. The Legislature is the place to sort out all of the arguments, not dueling Constitutional amendments.

Frankly, both sides have good points. Florida ought to be be doing more to provide incentives for solar. No, we’re not the desert sun but we still have plenty of sunshine. Utility companies are loathe to include the environmental benefits of solar into their cost-benefit calculations.

But utilities ahve a valid point that the integrity of the overall electric grid does have a crucial public purpose.

Other amendments are not controversial and deserve passage.

Amendment 3 provides tax exemptions to first responders disabled in the line of duty.

Amendment 5 locks home values in place for senior citizens eligible for tax breaks.

Voters approved Amendment 4 in the primary. It gives the same sort of property tax exemptions for solar energy to business that homeowners have.

Approve 3 of 4 amendments

No on Amendment 1: This controversial solar energy proposal should be worked out in the Legislature. It puts current rights in the Constitution and is too vague in other cases.

Yes Amendment 2: The time has some in Florida for a well crafted medical marijuana amendment.

Yes on Amendment 3: Property tax exemptions for first responders injured in the line of duty.

Yes on Amendment 5: Locks in home values for seniors eligible for property tax breaks.