MEDICAL POT USERS, DOCTORS FACE TANGLE OF CONFLICTING LAWS

Nearly three years after Colorado voters approved the use of medical marijuana,
the drug remains hard to come by for those allowed to use it - and many doctors
are still hesitant to authorize the treatment even for very sick patients.

That's because a tangle of contradictory laws continues to muddy the issue.
Although state law allows the use of marijuana by authorized patients, state
officials can't help those legal users acquire the drug. And although the
practice is legal in Colorado, federal law still forbids it.

Today, 320 Colorado residents have the certification to use medical marijuana.
Those patients come from 39 of Colorado's 64 counties and range in age from 18
to 76.

The number of new applicants has remained steady each year, and the total
number of certified users in Colorado remains relatively low (Oregon, which has
a similar law, has more than 4,000 certified users). That number, advocates of
the program say, is proof that the system is working and that only patients who
need it are getting the certification.

Those who may apply include critically ill people suffering from severe pain
and nausea, seizures, muscle spasms, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, cancer or cachexia.

Luther Symons, former president of Coloradans for Medical Rights, is delighted
with the program's progress.

"The sky did not fall down the way (opponents of the state law) were
predicting. It is being used by relatively few people in dire medical need,"
observed Symons.

Still, thanks to the conflicting laws, getting marijuana remains difficult for
all but the greenest of thumbs. Although state law allows certified users to
buy, own, transport and grow limited quantities of pot, "we can't help them
acquire seeds or cuttings," said Gail Kelsey, administrator of Colorado's
Medical Marijuana Registry.

Chuck Stout, director of the Boulder County Health Department, thinks he has a
solution.

Colorado could provide safe, pure marijuana, at cost, to certified users, Stout
said. Instead of burning confiscated marijuana after it is released from police
evidence lockers at the end of court cases, Stout said, it could be shipped to
a designated lab at Colorado State University where it could be graded and
checked for impurities.

Then it could be sold to certified medical marijuana patients at cost, perhaps
$10 or $15 an ounce, by designated pharmacies.

"The only salient question is how do we make this ingredient available in a
common-sense way," said Stout, who has been in his present job for more than 13
years and spent the previous 11 in the state health department.

"What I resent as a citizen is passive-aggressive government" that puts
roadblocks up once a law is passed. "That is government gone mad," he added.

For their part, federal officials say they won't be implementing Stout's idea
any time soon.

"We are not about to turn our seizures over to research labs for
redistribution, but if he can convince state officials, that is fine," said
John Suthers, U.S. attorney for the District of Colorado.

Neither Cindy Parmenter, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, which established the Medical Marijuana Registry, nor
Kelsey, the administrator, would comment on Stout's proposal, saying their job
is to uphold the letter of the existing law.

But Miles Madorin, staff attorney for the District Attorney's Council, said the
state legislature would have to make an exception to present law to permit the
distribution of marijuana.

Many Colorado doctors, meanwhile, still are reluctant to sign authorization
forms for patients because of the conflict between state and federal law.

Gov. Bill Owens and Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar have warned doctors
that they face the risk of federal prosecution if they sign certificates.

"'Medical necessity is not a defense to the federal prohibition notwithstanding
the state's law to the contrary," Salazar has warned.

"I don't want to be a test case," said Dr. Dean Beasley of Boulder, who has
been in family practice for 33 years. Even though 191 of his colleagues have
signed medical marijuana consent forms, Beasley won't.

"This is not a medical decision. I don't feel marijuana is a dangerous drug.
This is a political decision" affecting his livelihood, the doctor explained.

Dr. Patty Ammon, who has been practicing medicine in Ouray County for a decade,
said she also won't risk her medical license by recommending medical marijuana.

But, Ammon said, "It is incredibly shortsighted and misguided to make it
illegal when it can be so beneficial."

The pharmaceutical industry is making so much money on "ridiculously expensive
drugs" for nausea and vomiting, both of which can be alleviated by marijuana,
she added.

The doctors' hesitancy remains despite the fact that there haven't been any
marijuana-related convictions of patients or doctors on Colorado's registry,
according to Kelsey, the registry administrator.

"No physicians have experienced federal reprisals," she added.

They haven't because "federal authorities have better things to do than take to
task doctors who recommend marijuana," said Suthers, the U.S. attorney.

However, "if we believe the medical marijuana law is being abused and used as a
cover for large-scale marijuana distribution, we will take them to task,"
Suthers said.

Colorado isn't the only state whose laws contradict federal government laws on
medical marijuana use. The other nine states that have approved medical pot are
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington.

The conflicting laws have resulted in several high-profile court cases.

Last month, a federal district court judge in San Jose, Calif., dismissed a
lawsuit filed by a local government on behalf of sick and dying patients who
need medical marijuana under the state's law.

Judge Jeremy Fogel said the federal government retains the authority to find
and destroy controlled substances such as marijuana.

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to consider an
appeal by the Bush administration of a another California case that held a
doctor's recommendation to use marijuana medicinally is a First Amendment
exercise of free speech.

The distinction is "recommending," rather than "prescribing a banned
substance," said Kelsey.