Pubdate: Fri, 11 Dec 2009
Source: Flathead Beacon, The (Kalispell, MT)
Copyright: 2009 Flathead Beacon
Contact:  http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4870
Author: Kellyn Brown
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

FIXING AN AMBIGUOUS MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

Problems with Montana's medical marijuana law will only  escalate from
here. What's odd is that it took five  years from the time voters
overwhelmingly approved  legalizing the drug for medicinal purposes to
reach  this point.

In Whitefish, after people began approaching the  planning director
about "caregivers" opening medical  marijuana dispensaries within city
limits, the first  question to arise was whether such a business would
be  zoned light manufacturing, commercial retail or  something else
entirely. The issue only scratches the  surface of problems with a law
many attorneys argue is  too vague and includes too many loopholes.

Billings faces a similar dilemma. Unsure where to allow  medical
marijuana businesses, the council there  considered restricting their
proximity to residential  zones, such as schools, churches and
daycares. After  marijuana advocates threatened to sue the city, the
council tabled the motion. A similar situation could  unfold in Whitefish.

The problem with Montana's medical marijuana is that  even if well
intentioned, it is clearly incomplete.  Whether one supports the use
of pot as medicine, more  agree that it shouldn't be sold across the
street from  an elementary school. But as Initiative 148 was  written,
state law is "silent on where (marijuana) grow  sites can be located,"
according to Montana's  Department of Public Health and Human Services.

State law is also "silent" on a number of other issues:  whether a
landlord can evict you if you start a legal  growing operation;
whether an employer can fire you  even if you have a prescription to
use marijuana; and  where you can smoke pot -- there are limits on
school  grounds, prisons and public parks, but that's about it.

Last month, during a medical marijuana clinic in Great  Falls,
patients caused a stir after they were seen  openly smoking weed in
public, including on the steps  of the Great Falls Civic Center. While
not illegal, it  certainly didn't paint the group who sponsored the
clinic, Missoula-based Montana Caregivers Network, in a  good light.
It also amplified some divisions among  medical marijuana supporters.

Tom Daubert, one of the authors of the Montana Medical  Marijuana Act
and a caregiver himself, criticized parts  of the Great Falls event
and argued that the law is  often misrepresented. Another caregiver,
Mike Smith,  while also critical of patients smoking in public,
disagrees with Daubert about whether patients can  legally buy pot
before receiving a medical marijuana  card from the state health
department. Smith contends  all it takes is a physician's
recommendation, even if  the official paperwork isn't completed.
Daubert  disagrees.

All these discrepancies in how to follow the law have  only served to
confuse patients, municipalities and law  enforcement. And it's bound
to get worse. After a  four-and-a-half year lull, when very few people
took  advantage of Initiative 148, the number of users has  increased
substantially. Montana's DPHHS now counts  almost 5,000 registrants in
the state and more than 600  in Flathead County. At the Billings
meeting on whether  to restrict marijuana dispensaries' locations, one
  activist said that there were 44,000 potential medical  marijuana
patients in that area alone. That's an  absurdly high number, but even
if it's 25 percent true,  the law needs to be modified.

Montanans resoundingly (with 62 percent of the vote)  supported the
initiative to allow medical marijuana  use. But as Whitefish and
Billings begin grappling with  how to deal with these potential new
businesses, and as  more follow suit, it will only hurt proponents of
the  initiative if they are toking up in public or fighting  any and
all zoning restrictions tooth and nail. If  these are legitimate
enterprises, they should be  treated as such, which means they must
adhere to  equitable zoning regulations.

Hopefully, municipalities and caregivers will agree on  an interim
plan until 2011, when the state Legislature  can iron out ambiguities
in an otherwise popular law. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D