MARIJUANA VOTE SHOULD RESURFACE

The medical marijuana bill that state Rep. James Abrams (D-83) reintroduced
this year, after it failed in the House by 12 votes in 2003, deserves a
third try and careful consideration during next year's session.

The bill would allow patients suffering from such diseases as cancer, AIDS
and multiple sclerosis to cultivate marijuana legally for medicinal
purposes. The drug reportedly eases pain, stimulates appetite and controls
nausea.

For now, put aside whether you believe marijuana should be legal for
medicinal use. Let's focus instead on the process by which it might become
legal, or be denied such legitimacy.

This session, Abrams' bill faced scrutiny from three committees - Judiciary,
Appropriations and Public Health - and all three approved the bill. So it
went to the House floor for a vote.

Normally, a bill approved on the House floor is then sent to the Senate for
its approval; or, if the Senate approves the bill first, it travels to the
governor's office for his signature.

The medical marijuana bill passed the House with a majority vote, so it
should have gone on to the Senate. Since the House approved the bill less
than a week before the session was scheduled to end, time was of the
essence.

But time was not on the side of this bill. Majority Leader James Amann
(D-118) said the bill, as submitted in its final form, required additional
review by the Finance Committee, and therefore he sent it there. The delay
ultimately doomed the medical marijuana bill for this session.

The Finance Committee actually passed the medical marijuana bill, but House
leaders refused to return it to the floor for another vote before the
session ended.

Many people supported this bill - including a majority of the state
representatives - and it very nearly graduated to official legislation.

Since it came so close and drew such support, clearly it deserves serious
debate during the next legislative session.