I'm from a state that doesn't have medical marijuana law. In fact, the first bill on the legislative docket in 1997 removed the "medical necessity defense" from Ohio law. Medical marijuana bills were prepped for introduction in 2003 and 2005, but even though introduced in the Ohio Senate in 2005, the Ohio Medical Marijuana Act languished in the Criminal Justice Committee for two years with only last-minute sponsor testimony in November to show for it.

Even though legislators seem slow to equate marijuana with medicine, much has happened in the world of cannabinoid science since then the necessity defense door closed in 1997.

That year, then Drug-Czar Barry McCaffrey allocated $1 million to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to fund an 18-month review of all scientific data concerning marijuana's usefulness as a medicine. Finally released in 1999, the now infamous Institute of Medicine report (http://ohiopatient.net/pdf/Q&A-IOM.pdf) found that, "The potential therapeutic value of cannabinoids is extremely broad" and "extends well beyond antiemesis for chemotherapy and appetite."

As reported in OPN's 2006 Year in Review, worldwide research has fulfilled IOM's prophesy. Conditions from AIDS to Alzheimer's appear to benefit from treatment with cannabinoid medicine. An excellent booklet has been added to NORML's library that graphically illustrates the many medicinal uses of marijuana. (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002)

Still, cannabis has treaded a long and circuitous path on its way to becoming a legitimate modern medicine. As documented in the "Therapeutic History of Cannabis, A Timeline of Marijuana Research and Regulation" (http://ohiopatient.net/pdf/History_of_MMJ_Research.pdf) created in 2003, a number of obstacles have placed in the way of therapeutic cannabis research.

Unlike virtually any other drug considered for addition to the U.S. Pharmacopeia, whole-plant cannabis-based compounds have had to leap at least four separate bureaucratic hurtles on their way to approval as medicine. These have included the FDA (the ultimate drug regulatory agency), the National Institute of Health (approved research protocols to ensure they were "scientifically meritorious" and thus fundable), Drug Enforcement Administration (licenses the researcher to work with marijuana), and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (supplies the cannabis). Most of the remaining pharmaceutical hopefuls answer only to the FDA.

Further, a number of legal actions - from Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis' petition to the DEA to reclassify cannabis in the Controlled Substances Act, to MAPS lawsuit to secure a source of supply separate from NIDA, to Americans for Safe Access' request for corrections about cannabis under the Data Quality Act - have tried to crack this bureaucratic quagmire.

Behind the backdrop of burgeoning cannabinoid science vying against an obstinate bureaucracy lies a pharmaceutical industry in crisis. The industry's business model has been broken by overly exhaustive research, a cumbersome approval process, over-reliance on blockbusters, a declining product pipeline, unrealistic Wall Street expectations, and bankrupting product liability, to name a few. Through soaring costs for prescription drugs that have debilitating side effects, we're now paying a high price for allowing bureaucracy to trump science. Believe it or not, this isn't lost on legislators. Whether the reserved Republican or embolden Democrat, each is quietly acknowledging cannabis to be as safe as many prescription medications now substituted for it.

Some day soon a breaking point will occur at which these forces collide: burgeoning cannabinoid science, an obstinate bureaucratic quagmire, and the pharmaceutical business model meltdown. When they do, our turn will come.

Finally unable to justify bureaucratic inertia and a broken healthcare system, legislators will easily approve bills like the Ohio Medical Marijuana Act. No medicinal cannabis legislation will ever again languish. A new energy behind cannabinoid research will emerge unencumbered by over aggressive federal oversight. New cannabiniod medicines will be introduced that will redefine the pharmaceutical business model. Whole-plant cannabis will be rescheduled, separate sources of research supply will become widely available, and false federal data will be corrected. When finally our turn comes, there will be no state without a medical marijuana law, nor any need for a "medical necessity defense".

You see, our turn means more than "we won". It comes with a larger context of solutions to the critical bureaucratic, business, and legal problems that face our nation. We know that this wondrous plant can heal and soothe the body. It may also be a key to fixing a broken and bogged-down federal bureaucracy and healthcare system.

In the final analysis, our turn will be marked by the integration of cannabis, its values, and its benefits into scientific enquiry, federal oversight, and legislative action.

Our turn is coming and bringing with it a sea of change.