Pubdate: Wed, 26 Feb 2003
Source: Rutland Herald (VT)
Copyright: 2003 Rutland Herald
Contact:  http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/892
Author: David Mace

MEDICAL POT LAW OPPOSED BY DOUGLAS

MONTPELIER -- Republican Gov. James Douglas said Wednesday he would oppose 
legalizing marijuana use for people with diseases like AIDS and cancer 
because it would still be illegal under federal law and there are other 
drugs available to help those suffering from such conditions.

"I have tremendous empathy for those who suffer from chronic pain and who 
feel they would benefit from medical marijuana," Douglas said. "But I think 
it would be awkward to legalize a substance that could still the subject of 
prosecution by federal authorities."

Douglas praised the work of advocates and those who participated on a study 
commission this summer that was set up after a bill passed the 
GOP-controlled House last year but couldn't be reconciled with a Senate 
version.

He said they should focus their efforts on changing federal law.

"I really think the proper forum for this debate is at the Food and Drug 
Administration," which regulates prescription drugs, Douglas said. "They've 
authorized the use of marinol, a THC-based drug, and could certainly agree 
to extend that authorization to marijuana if the FDA believes it appropriate."

Douglas said he was also concerned about the message that legalization for 
medical purposes would send, though he said that was a secondary consideration.

Douglas' statements came as lawmakers worked to craft a final version of 
the bill. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Sears, 
D-Bennington, said he hoped the bill could be on its way to the Senate 
Finance Committee by the end of the week and on the floor for debate when 
the Legislature returns from the town meeting break.

The bill, modeled closely after the one that passed the House last year 
with tri-partisan support, requires a doctor's certification that the 
patient suffers from one of several specified conditions and needs 
marijuana to relieve symptoms.

The Department of Health would determine whether the person was eligible, 
and patients who were rejected could appeal, though that mechanism is still 
being worked out. In addition, a person could register to be a patient's 
caregiver, and the Health Department would keep the records confidential 
unless police needed to verify the information.

Persons authorized to use medical marijuana couldn't smoke it in any public 
place, and could not be under the influence while driving or in other 
circumstances when they could endanger others.

In addition, a registered user or caregiver could also grow medical 
marijuana in a locked indoor facility and transport it in a locked 
container, an effort to prevent confusion by police. Since a search warrant 
would be needed to look in the container or search a home, that would 
provide time to search the database and determine whether the owner was 
exempt from prosecution.

Police and the Vermont attorney general's office had opposed the bill on 
grounds similar to the governor's and because it would force patients to go 
to drug dealers for pot or seeds. Douglas acknowledged their concerns had 
played a role in his decision.

"We've been advised by the Drug Enforcement Agency that they not only 
reserve the right to prosecute people for possession and use of marijuana, 
but state officials who administer the program," he said. "That got my 
attention. ... They haven't done it anywhere else, but they have notified 
us that they reserve the right to do that."

Advocates for medical marijuana were downcast by Douglas' position.

"We're disappointed," said Virginia Renfrew, a lobbyist for the HIV Public 
Policy Project, who served on the summer study committee. "The fact is that 
there are eight states that have taken the bold step to allow seriously ill 
people to use medical marijuana in the privacy of their home under the 
guidance of their doctors ... and we have not seen any doctors or patients 
arr ested."

She said Vermont's law, if passed, would be "the strictest in the country," 
and questioned whether the federal authorities would seek out and arrest 
program participants or administrators.

"Of course they're going to say that, but let's look at the eight states 
that do this," Renfrew said. "In five, they're run by state programs ... 
has one state official been arrested? What message would that send if the 
feds came in and arrested a governor because they had a medical marijuana 
program in their state?"

Advocates for medical marijuana have pointed to testimony from AIDS 
patients and others who say that they can't take oral medications like 
marinol and that it doesn't work well for them anyway.

The summer study committee concluded that "although scientific evidence is 
limited, marijuana has some medical value in reducing patient suffering ... 
and, consequently, the General Assembly may determine that compassion ... 
requires that it be made available to those patients for whom it will 
provide some relief not attainable with other prescribed medications."

Renfrew was blunt: "If you talk to somebody who's seriously ill they'll say 
(marinol) is not very effective and it's extremely costly."

While the bill appears to have support in the Democratically controlled 
Senate, its passage in the House is still far from guaranteed. Opponents 
like Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland City, said they would continue to fight it.

"Coming from Rutland where we have such a big drug problem ... my biggest 
concern is the message it sends," DePoy said. He worried that keeping 
marijuana out of the hands of those who were not patients would be 
difficult, and that medical marijuana could be a first step toward 
recreational legalization.

And while House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Rep. Margaret Flory, 
R-Pittsford, who supported the bill last year, said she believed the bill 
could pass her committee, she wasn't sure that was the case in other 
committees, particularly the Health and Welfare Committee chaired by Rep. 
Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town.

Douglas acknowledged he would discuss the matter with House leaders, but 
wouldn't say whether he'd veto the bill if it landed on his desk.

"I don't want to issue veto threats," he said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex