Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jun 2005
Source: Providence Journal, The (RI)
Copyright: 2005 The Providence Journal Company
Contact:  http://www.projo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/352
Author: Katherine Gregg, Journal State House Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

HOUSE OKS MARIJUANA PROPOSAL

Legislation is also passed by the House that lets judges force
batterers who are under restraining orders to give up their firearms.

Legislation to allow the medical use of marijuana by seriously ill
people with AIDS, cancer and other chronic and debilitating conditions
cleared the Rhode Island House of Representatives for the first time
yesterday.

On a busy night in the week before they hope to adjourn this year's
legislative session, the lawmakers also approved their own version of
a Senate-passed bill to allow judges to take away guns from accused
batterers who have been placed under domestic-violence restraining
orders.

Both bills cleared the House amid indications they will be adopted by
the Senate, which has passed similar but not yet identical bills.

And they both drew extended debate from lawmakers who acknowledged
that, only a few years ago, they would not have envisioned themselves
voting for either bill.

The so-called pot-for-pain bill won House approval, 52 to
10.

It would protect patients, their doctors, pharmacists and caregivers
from arrest and prosecution under state drug laws if a doctor,
certified to the state Health Department, determines that a patient
might be helped by marijuana.

The legislation would allow the state to issue registration cards
allowing the patient -- or his or her caregiver -- to have up to 12
plants or 2.5 ounces of "usable marijuana" at any time.

In response to concerns that children and others might gain access to
marijuana grown outdoors, the chief House sponsor, Rep. Thomas C.
Slater, agreed to several restrictions that were not in the Senate
bill passed earlier this month.

Under the latest version, the plants must be stored in "an indoor
facility." Authorized caregivers cannot have a felony conviction in
their past. And the Department of Health would be required to report
back to the legislature by Jan. 1, 2007, on the number of people who
availed themselves of the program, and any problems arising from it.

Unless lawmakers voted to keep the program going, it would expire on
June 30, 2007.

But opponents voiced discomfort at the big unanswered question: where
would the marijuana come from.

"Can someone point out . . . where one would legally obtain the
marijuana?" asked Rep. Rene R. Menard, D-Lincoln.

In response, Slater, D-Providence, said a health center that tried to
dispense the marijuana would lose its federal funding; a pharmacy
would be shut down, so the answer is: "At the most convenient places
they can get it."

"It's here," said Rep. Timothy A. Williamson, D-West Warwick, asking
the rhetorical question: why not let people use it if their doctors
say it's OK.

But after describing himself as a cancer survivor who went through a
year of chemotherapy, Rep. Laurence W. Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown,
said he remains troubled that the marijuana possession and use that
the bill envisions would still be a crime under federal law.

But Rep. Steven M. Costantino, D-Providence, said he is wryly amused
by the double standard that Congress, the law and society, in general,
applies to alcohol ("the most abused drug ever") and to prescription
drugs such as Vicodin that have "caused more harm . . . than marijuana
could ever."

Costantino, a lobbyist for the substance-abuse treatment community
before he became a legislator, said he has never read that marijuana
use by seriously ill people led to problems in the other states that
allow it.

The House Health, Education & Welfare Committee met late last night,
after the marathon House session ended, to revise the Senate-passed
marijuana bill to mirror the House version. The House is scheduled to
vote on that bill tomorrow and that, in turn, could pave the way for
final passage by the Senate of both bills.

That would put the issue in the lap of Governor Carcieri, who stopped
short of vowing a veto, but expressed his concerns again yesterday.

"Nobody wants to see people that are really in pain and suffering be
picked on," Carcieri said. But, "This bill is full of holes as to how
they get it, how many plants they are going to have, who's going to
have the plants, how are you going to control it. . . . I just think
it's a path we shouldn't be going down and . . . there are other
alternatives. It's fraught will all kinds of problems, so let me see
what happens, but I don't think it's a good idea."

Will he veto it? "We'll see what comes out, OK? I've said before I
think it's ill-advised. It's not a good position for the legislature
to be passing a law that essentially conflicts me and every other
law-enforcement officer, all of us sworn to uphold the laws of the
nation -- to say ignore them."

MEANWHILE, CHEERS rang out in the State House rotunda after House
passage on a 52-to-15 vote of legislation allowing judges to force
batterers, under restraining orders, to relinquish all their firearms
to the police, a gun dealer or a friend who is not related.

Most of the debate centered on an exemption for police officers,
military reservists and any other person "who is required by their
employment to carry a firearm in the performance of their duties." The
legislation would allow such people to keep and continue to use their
duty-weapons while they are working, as long as they store them with
their "place of employment" in off-duty hours.

Menard attempted to amend the legislation to put the responsibility
for deciding who truly needed a gun for work in the hands of a
law-enforcement panel.

Even with this language, opponents of the bill said there was no
rational justification for exempting this one class of people,
especially given the "high incidence" of domestic abuse by police
officers. Others said the exemption would leave potential victims "a
false sense of security."

But several lawmakers, including Rep. Joseph M. McNamara, D-Warwick,
said the amendment would give a panel of four the power to undermine
the decision of a judge. House Majority Leader Gordon D. Fox,
D-Providence, said it would unhinge the compromises that got the
long-argued legislation this far.

"This amendment will kill this bill because the Senate will not pass
this bill with this amendment," Fox said.

Menard denied that was his intent. But his proposal was nonetheless
defeated on a 40-to-23 vote. The legislation now heads to the Senate,
which passed slightly different versions that were tailored to match
by the House Health, Education & Welfare Committee last night. Both
versions are still a step or two away from final passage.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake