Montana Medical Marijuana Hearing Draws Crowd
More than a hundred people crowded into the Montana state capitol in Helena Friday for a hearing on a bill designed to rein in and regulate the state's free-wheeling medical marijuana industry. The hearing was on HB 68, a bill introduced by Rep. Diane Sands (D-Missoula) on behalf of an interim legislative committee that spent the off-season trying to come up with a workable regulatory framework.
[image:1 align:left caption:true]The bill would create a tiered licensing and registration system for patients and providers, require cardholders to pay a license fee, and give local governments the authority to regulate the industry. It would also require that chronic pain patients -- the largest category -- be approved by two physicians, and it would ban people with felony records from being patients or providers. Recommending doctors would have to have a Montana office and no ties to the medical marijuana industry.
The legislature decided last summer to try to get a handle on the industry as medical marijuana exploded in the state. The number of patients ballooned from 7,000 at the beginning of the year to 27,000 at year's end, dispensaries began popping up around the state, and "cannabis caravans" led by one envelope-pushing medical marijuana activist/entrepreneur crisscrossed the Big Sky Country with affiliated doctors handing out recommendations after allegedly perfunctory exams, some done over the Internet.
HB 68 is the result of the legislative interim committee's efforts and, not surprisingly, not everybody is happy. Strange bedfellows have found each other, with some elements of the medical marijuana community agreeing with law enforcement that the bill should be supported, while other elements of the community, who want to block the bill, find themselves in an odd alliance with anti-medical marijuana groups, who also want to block the bill, but because they want to repeal medical marijuana entirely.
"The complete lack of regulation in this area has created both the perception that medical marijuana is out of control and the complete inability by our normal systems and institutions to rein in all the bad actors out there," said Sen. Sands. "We need clarification and regulations provided in this bill."
Montana law enforcement representatives spoke in general support of the bill. "We realize that House Bill 68 is not a perfect bill by any means, but it goes a long ways towards helping take care of the mess that we're currently in in Montana," said Mark Long, chief of the Montana Narcotics Bureau, who added that the lack of controls was making the state "a national embarrassment."
Law enforcement appreciates the bill setting a "clear bright line about what's legal and what's not," said Jim Smith, speaking for the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers and Montana County Attorney Associations.
The bill also won support from Tom Daubert, one of the author's of the state's 2004 initiative and currently head of Patients and Families United, despite what he said were some serious flaws. He urged the committee to keep working on the bill to improve it. "I believe the opportunity for near-consensus solutions is extraordinarily good," he said.
But a number of patients and providers voiced objections to different provisions of the proposed legislation. Drawing repeated condemnation were the no-felon and two-doctor requirements.
"Health care is health care and it should not be connected with anything in the law enforcement industry unless you've got your prescription and you're selling it on the street," said patient and grower Sarah Baugh. "That's when law enforcement needs to become involved. Medical necessity should not be related to one's criminal transgressions, nor should safe health care be a last resort."
"Y'all don't have a right to regulate who gets medical care and who doesn't! That's ridiculous," yelled one opponent in apparent reference to the no-felon provision.
"The dual diagnosis for chronic pain patients is unnecessarily punitive for a certain medical condition," said Doug Chyatte of Montanans for Responsible Legislation. "It doesn't address the problem of exploitation or abuse that we've seen over the past year."
"The two doctor deal has to be thrown out because so many of these people are on Medicaid, Medicare, like I am, and there ain't no way we can afford $300 dollars to go see a doctor," said patient and caregiver Ken Lindeman.
No vote on the bill was taken.
HB 68 isn't the only medical marijuana bill before the legislature this year. Another one introduced by Sen. Sands on behalf of the interim committee would make medical marijuana subject to the state's clean air law, there is a competing bill to tax and regulate, and there is also a bill to repeal the 2004 initiative vote itself. But HB 68 is the one with the biggest push behind it.
Comments
Doctors
They gonna require doctors to not have any ties to Big Pharma too?
Appoint a doctor or scientist to the DEA and ONDCP
One would think the DEA and ONDCP has doctors or scientists on staff.
Sadly this is not so - we would like to see that changed and believe it is a step to change.
Please sign the letter petition to appoint a doctor or scientist to the DEA and ONDCP.
http://criminaljustice.change.org/petitions/view/appoint_a_doctor_or_scientist_to_the_dea_and_ondcp
Thank you!
I have several felonies
I also have four crushed vertebrae in my lower spine which causes me so much pain that I am currently on enough Fentanyl to kill at least 20 people.I am not one of the people that has been helped by either the pharmaceutical equivalent or by smoking pot but I would love to try that hemp oil that one Richard Simpson brews back east.Unfortunately he was raided while in Amsterdam to receive some award as the pot grower of the year and can't come back to Canada.It gets real old hearing about this person in prison and that person banned from their own country over marijuana.More than 50% of our country wants the government out of our business when it comes to marijuana.At the same time our born again evangelical government has legislation disguised as an anti organized crime bill in front of the house trying to have mandatory minimum sentences introduced for all manner of minor crimes including the growing of over 5 marijuana plants.I have seen what happens when such legislation becomes the law of the land.We had a habitual criminal act back in the day that was also aimed at organised crime.It ended up being used against drug addicts,who by the very nature of their addiction wound up afoul of the law on many occasions.I can guarantee that the Harper government is not only aware of this,they are counting on it.Saying that a person with felonies is unable to access medical treatment is the same kind of warped twisted thinking that is driving the whole drug war.It's stupid,uncaring and without any scientific merit.Just like prohibition.
REJECT THE FEAR TACTICS, WELCOME MEDICINAL CANNABIS EVERYWHERE!
In this society of ever-increasing stress levels, how can anyone possibly justify keeping the substance that promotes violence (alcohol) "legal", while insisting that the substance that suppresses violence (Cannabis) should be kept "illegal"! Total absence of logic. Cannabis is not physically addictive as it has no documented physical withdrawal syndrome associated with its use; smoking Cannabis has been shown to have NO connection with increased risk of lung cancer, the so-called "gateway drug" theory is a non-existent entity altogether, and Marinol is a synthetic THC analogue, which is not at all the same thing as Medicinal Cannabis. This is together with the remarkable medicinal properties of the Cannabis plant, the denial of which is not even a "rational" thing to do! It is as pointed out in the prestigious "Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook" that states clearly that "Cannabis use suppresses violent behavior and only the unsophisticated think otherwise". Cannabis prohibition is doing more harm to this society than many people realize, as the (young) people are pushed to "experiment" with alcohol/hard drugs or dangerous, physically addictive prescription drugs, many of which promoting violent behavior instead of suppressing it as Cannabis does. CA Prop. 19 directly challenged the DEA "dogmas", and it was the reason why it infuriated the "powers that be" the way it did! Unfortunately, many lawmakers are still swayed by the DEA disinformation in all these respects, but one thing is clear: just like KGB before it, the DEA will not be able to defend its mindless "dogmas" by repression alone; sooner or later the American people will clearly see this nonsense, and they will not tolerate it indefinitely!
In reply to REJECT THE FEAR TACTICS, WELCOME MEDICINAL CANNABIS EVERYWHERE! by Leonard Krivit… (not verified)
Are you the same Leonard
Are you the same Leonard Krivitsky mentioned in the link below? If so, can you still claim to be an MD?http://www.med.ohio.gov/pdf/Newsletters/winter01.pdf Do you deny that studies have linked marijuana use during pregnancy to spontaneous abortions and ADHD/ behavioral issues in the offspring? Studies have linked marijuana use to schizophrenia - have you seen these? Being a doctor, I would think you have. If you have seen these studies and still advocate marijuana use, you have no business being a doctor.
REJECT THE FEAR TACTICS, WELCOME MEDICINAL CANNABIS EVERYWHERE!
In this society of ever-increasing stress levels, how can anyone possibly justify keeping the substance that promotes violence (alcohol) "legal", while insisting that the substance that suppresses violence (Cannabis) should be kept "illegal"! Total absence of logic. Cannabis is not physically addictive as it has no documented physical withdrawal syndrome associated with its use; smoking Cannabis has been shown to have NO connection with increased risk of lung cancer, the so-called "gateway drug" theory is a non-existent entity altogether, and Marinol is a synthetic THC analogue, which is not at all the same thing as Medicinal Cannabis. This is together with the remarkable medicinal properties of the Cannabis plant, the denial of which is not even a "rational" thing to do! It is as pointed out in the prestigious "Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook" that states clearly that "Cannabis use suppresses violent behavior and only the unsophisticated think otherwise". Cannabis prohibition is doing more harm to this society than many people realize, as the (young) people are pushed to "experiment" with alcohol/hard drugs or dangerous, physically addictive prescription drugs, many of which promoting violent behavior instead of suppressing it as Cannabis does. CA Prop. 19 directly challenged the DEA "dogmas", and it was the reason why it infuriated the "powers that be" the way it did! Unfortunately, many lawmakers are still swayed by the DEA disinformation in all these respects, but one thing is clear: just like KGB before it, the DEA will not be able to defend its mindless "dogmas" by repression alone; sooner or later the American people will clearly see this nonsense, and they will not tolerate it indefinitely!
REJECT THE FEAR TACTICS, WELCOME MEDICINAL CANNABIS EVERYWHERE!
In this society of ever-increasing stress levels, how can anyone possibly justify keeping the substance that promotes violence (alcohol) "legal", while insisting that the substance that suppresses violence (Cannabis) should be kept "illegal"! Total absence of logic. Cannabis is not physically addictive as it has no documented physical withdrawal syndrome associated with its use; smoking Cannabis has been shown to have NO connection with increased risk of lung cancer, the so-called "gateway drug" theory is a non-existent entity altogether, and Marinol is a synthetic THC analogue, which is not at all the same thing as Medicinal Cannabis. This is together with the remarkable medicinal properties of the Cannabis plant, the denial of which is not even a "rational" thing to do! It is as pointed out in the prestigious "Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook" that states clearly that "Cannabis use suppresses violent behavior and only the unsophisticated think otherwise". Cannabis prohibition is doing more harm to this society than many people realize, as the (young) people are pushed to "experiment" with alcohol/hard drugs or dangerous, physically addictive prescription drugs, many of which promoting violent behavior instead of suppressing it as Cannabis does. CA Prop. 19 directly challenged the DEA "dogmas", and it was the reason why it infuriated the "powers that be" the way it did! Unfortunately, many lawmakers are still swayed by the DEA disinformation in all these respects, but one thing is clear: just like KGB before it, the DEA will not be able to defend its mindless "dogmas" by repression alone; sooner or later the American people will clearly see this nonsense, and they will not tolerate it indefinitely!
This is why I agree with Doug
This is why I agree with Doug Stanhope on the issue of medical marijuana. Don't get me wrong I don't deny that there are a vast amount of legitimate medical uses for cannabis. But despite what the anti-prohibitionists claim the truth is medical marijuana is a back door method of legalization.
This idea of "slow-progression" and "one step at a time" is getting us no where. Now we see Montana jumping at every chance they have to build new taxing and regulatory schemes to "protect patients." This is what's going to happen in Arizona, as well as what's happening Michigan right now. Your fight and fight and for what? So Betty Sue with cancer can pay the government fifteen different fees and licenses just to get a hit of some government controlled dirt weed.
What we need is just blanket legalization, the argument starts with "I own my body and can put whatever I want into it, society has no role in my personal choices." Not with "well you see it helps cancer patients eat." When you start there you have no point to which you can compromise because your starting with a compromise.
Even in California they tried doing too much with their "legalization" bill. Lets legalize first, then we can fight over taxes and other stuff. The burden of proof is on the state as to why is should remain illegal, not on us to prove that it should be legal.
Add new comment