Last week, the Utah Medical Association issued a strongly worded statement against the term “medical marijuana,” noting that scientific evidence is lacking to justify referring to the entire plant as medicine.

That is an important concept. UMA has now applied its institutional weight to a scientific reality that needs to take center stage as a wave of pro-marijuana legislation moves across the land—i.e., there's no definitive proof for the benefits of even parts of the plant.

We don’t doubt the sincerity of those who testified before lawmakers last year about the plant’s benefits. No one should take lightly the real pain and suffering of people who have turned to marijuana for relief. We are, however, persuaded by Dr. Bridin Murnion of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, who wrote that the limited evidence so far of the plant’s benefits “may reflect subjective rather than objective outcomes, and is not conclusive.” Science, not emotional testimony, should be the determining factor.

Simply put, it is far more compassionate to encourage sufferers to seek real, scientifically backed solutions to their ailments than to approve the use of a drug whose full effects are unknown and whose use under a medicinal banner is a step toward complete legalization.

Last year, Utah lawmakers came close to passing a law that would have allowed extracts from parts of the plant to be consumed medicinally. With the effort’s chief proponent, former Sen. Mark Madsen, no longer in the Legislature, momentum may be missing for a similar push this year.

Should it re-emerge in some form, Utah lawmakers should keep the focus on research. Nothing should be classified by law as medicine without the research necessary to demonstrate its benefits and provide proper dosages as a guide for attending physicians. Setting such a precedent might lead to efforts to legitimize a host of other questionable remedies.

Admittedly, this puts marijuana proponents in an unfair box because it is virtually impossible to perform proper research. Parts of the plant may indeed have medicinal benefits, but the federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, which limits ways in which it may be studied.

Attempts to reclassify it during the Obama administration failed. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will push to reconsider the matter.

Reclassifying the drug as a Schedule II substance would not make it legal on the federal level, but it would allow for broader testing. Given how so many state laws now contradict federal law, a redesignation seems not only logical, but necessary.

The speed with which some states have embraced marijuana, either as a remedy or for recreational use, is disturbing. Proponents act as if the drug is harmless. That is not true. As with any other mind-altering drug, its widespread use comes with a host of negative social costs and personal health risks.

The UMA was right to attempt to put the brakes on its incursion into Utah until medical professionals can declare they know the facts.