Pubdate: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 Source: Seattle Weekly (WA) Copyright: 2001 Seattle Weekly Contact: http://www.seattleweekly.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/410 Author: RIC SMITH, SHORELINE, WA Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n612/a10.html?18748 A DROWSY AFFAIR I attended the February 12 hearing in Olympia [see "Spliffed," 4/5], and my chief concern is that you may have mistakenly attended some other hearing. The hearing before the Senate Committee on Health and Long-Term Care February 12, 2001, regarding SB 5176 was an opportunity to voice support or opposition to a small yet IMPORTANT clarification in Washington state's Medical Marijuana law RCW 69.51(A): Whether to assign regulatory oversight to this state's Department of Health. The 'impressive' can mentioned in your column holds a 30- day supply of medical marijuana particulate matter rolled into cigarettes issued by the federal government to patients currently participating in their program. This 'enormous quantity' is one federal patient's recommended amount, presented as an example of practices/guidelines within the federal government's ongoing 25- year-old program. The canister was a simple tactile aid, certainly not part of any "performance." Over a 60-day period, some of us may medicinally utilize an amount of marijuana troubling to you--many do not--in order to control our pain, spasticity, nausea, and/or other symptoms or side effects relating to our specific diagnosis. Medical marijuana may be smoked, and it may be ingested. Efficacy varies dependent upon means of delivery. My supply of medical marijuana fits rather nicely into a pint-sized carton or container. Irregardless of your personal opinions [and] your mocking characterizations of ill persons as "one serious viper, indeed, mon," legally authorized patients under the care of their licensed physician deserve the protections afforded them by this law. This was made evident by the margin of our state's voters overwhelmingly approving the initiative in 1998 creating this law. Clearly defined protections that would cover all patients using marijuana, whether the "dirt weed the feds dish out'" or the "10-20 times more potent" "street bud" of your clouded imagination, remains the issue. With passage of SB 5176, the Department of Health can finally do this. The confusion shown by your interpretation of the day's proceedings once again supports the need for accurate public education. Proof again that the affected parties-- patients, care-givers, medical providers, law enforcement, etc.--need and deserve clear language/protections within this state's 3-year-old law. Careful thought has gone into SB 5176; the decision to turn regulatory duties of 69.51(A) over to Department of Health is an important one. Again . . . are you sure you were at the correct hearing? What were ya smoking, "mon"? RIC SMITH SHORELINE - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom