MEDICAL-POT BILLS UP FOR 2 HEARINGS

HELENA - When it comes to medical marijuana in Montana, it's easy to
stir up a hornet's nest of controversy, although advocate Tom Daubert
says that shouldn't be the case on a bill he and others are supporting
this week.

"It's as uncontroversial as a bill with the word 'marijuana' in it can
be," he said of House Bill 73, which would allow not only physicians
but also nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe
marijuana for medical use in Montana.

The same probably can't be said about another marijuana-related bill
up for hearing this week, which will face vocal opposition from
supporters of Montana's medical-marijuana program.

Senate Bill 212, sponsored by Sen. Verdell Jackson, R-Kalispell, said
that if a medical-marijuana patient or caregiver is involved in a
traffic accident or traffic stop by police, the police can demand a
blood test of that person.

If the person refuses, his or her medical-marijuana registration card
can be revoked, and if the test shows the patient has a certain level
of marijuana residue in the bloodstream, the card can be revoked for
life.

Jackson said he's concerned about the high number of Montanans who are
killed or injured by impaired drivers.

"I consider this a special situation," he said. "If they are taking
marijuana and (driving), that's very serious."

Daubert, who represents the medical-marijuana group Montana Patients
and Families United, said he has seen no indication of any problem
with medical-marijuana patients or their caregivers driving under the
influence. A "caregiver" is someone legally designated to supply
patients with marijuana.

The two bills are among several affecting medical marijuana this
Legislature, from both sides of the issue. Others yet to be introduced
include a proposal to make it easier for patients to possess the
amount of drug they need and one to close an alleged loophole arguably
allowing caregivers to use the drug.

For now, however, the focus is on the two introduced
bills.

HB78 will be heard before the House Human Services Committee on
Wednesday afternoon; Jackson's bill is before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on Tuesday morning.

Rep. Julie French, D-Scobey, the sponsor of HB73, said she has heard
complaints against her bill, but that opponents often want to argue a
point already settled: the legality of medical marijuana.

Montana voters made medical marijuana legal in 2004 by passing
Initiative 148 with 62 percent in favor. As of last month, nearly
1,600 patients in 42 Montana counties have been approved as
medical-marijuana users, usually to alleviate pain caused by chronic
diseases such as cancer and multiple sclerosis.

French said her bill simply puts rural patients on an equal footing
with urban Montanans when it comes to finding a health care
professional who could prescribe medical marijuana.

Current law allows only a physician to designate someone as eligible
for medical marijuana. As physicians become scarce in rural Montana,
severely ill patients who might need the drug would have to travel
hundreds of miles to see someone they don't even know, she said.

HB73 also would allow someone with an incurable medical condition to
renew his or her medical-marijuana registry every three years instead
of every year.

"As with any other medicine we prescribe, we don't go out of the way
to make life hell for (the patient)," French said.

French and Daubert say HB73 is fairly innocuous, and hope it can
overcome any opposition from those who don't like the fact that
medical marijuana is legal in Montana.

As for Jackson's SB212, Daubert said it could penalize
medical-marijuana patients who aren't driving under the influence.
Elements of marijuana stay in one's system for days after using it,
and the user could fail the blood test and then lose his or her
medical marijuana registration card, even if not driving while
impaired, he said.

"There's no scientific basis for the standards (in the bill) for
impairment," Daubert said. "Those who medicate with marijuana would be
pretty much guaranteed to fail the test."

Jackson said that if it's true that medical-marijuana patients aren't
driving much at all, let alone under the influence, then they
shouldn't be worried about his bill. "But if they are out there
driving around, and they kill someone, it would be pretty hard to
convince the family members (of the victim) that it wasn't a problem,"
he said.

Still, Jackson said he'll look forward to Tuesday's hearing to listen
to arguments against his proposal.

"I want to use the public process to see if we have a problem in this
area," he said.