Pubdate: Wed, 22 Jan 2014
Source: Seattle Weekly (WA)
Copyright: 2014 Village Voice Media
Website: http://www.seattleweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/410
Author: Steve Elliott
Column: Toke Signals

WHY ARE WE 'SAVING MEDICAL MARIJUANA' AGAIN?

To an outside observer not involved in the fight, it must seem curious
how often the cannabis community has to "save medical marijuana" in
Washington state. Why is it that Washington politicians, from Gov.
Inslee on down, have started to define the state's 15-year-old
medical-marijuana law as an "unregulated" problem? And why did patient
groups just spend two more days in Washington lobbying (and trying to
educate) legislators?

While I can't definitively tell you why lawmakers just can't seem to
leave the medical-marijuana law alone, I can point to one huge factor
in the confusing mess that it's become in Washington: former Gov.
Chris Gregoire's line-item veto of much of SB 5073 three years ago.
That bill-approved by the legislature and sent to Gregoire's desk,
where it was eviscerated-would have expanded safe, legal access to
medicinal cannabis and finally would have extended arrest protection
to medical-marijuana patients in Washington state.

Gregoire, citing fears of state employees getting busted for
administering the medical-marijuana program (which has never happened
in any state), vetoed almost all the significant portions of SB 5073.
And yet the Governor struck sections which would have formally
legalized medical-marijuana dispensaries (which had operated in a
"gray area") and provided arrest protection for patients (the 1998 law
provided only an "affirmative defense" through which patients could
get marijuana charges dismissed in court).

The governor left in a few meager scraps of the bill's original
language, including portions establishing the right to patient
collective gardens, under which Washington's current dispensaries operate.

The legally complex underbrush left behind is what medical-marijuana
advocates still must struggle through, and is the reason that this
community must fight a seemingly endless battle to preserve patient
access in the face of the implementation of recreational legalization
and its attendant shutdown of patient collectives-at least, if the
legislature decides to follow the Liquor Control Board's recent
recommendations.

Rep. Eileen Cody's HB 2149 follows, almost to the letter, the board's
recommendations. SB 5887, sponsored by Sens. Rivers, Tom, and Litzow,
isn't much of an improvement.

But there's another, better, medical-marijuana bill, HB 2233,
sponsored by Reps. Sherry Appleton, Luis Moscoso, Roger Freeman, and
Jessyn Farrell. This bill, which has been assigned to the House Health
Care & Wellness Committee, would finally provide arrest protection to
any MMJ patients who have a recommendation from a physician, without
the need to join a state registry (as is required in Cody's bill). It
would also protect patient collectives that procure a simple business
license from the state, and would leave unaltered the current
24-ounce, 15-plant limit for patients.

Will the compelling testimony from people like Ryan Day-the Thurston
County father of a 5-year-old boy, who told the Health Committee (at a
hearing for Rep. Cody's bill) that the bill's proposed three-plant
limit just wouldn't provide enough medicine to make the oil which
helps stop his son's seizures-make a difference? I hope so.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt