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