MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL WINS OK

HARTFORD - The state Senate, in a 23-13 bipartisan vote, last night
approved a bill to legalize the medical use of marijuana to relieve
the suffering of patients with debilitating conditions such as cancer
or AIDS.

The legislation, approved May 23 by the House, 89-58, heads to
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell for her signature.

If the legislation becomes law, Connecticut will become the 13th state
to allow the palliative use of marijuana despite the federal
prohibition against it.

"She'll read it thoroughly and think it over," Rell spokesman Adam
Liegeot said.

A 2004 University of Connecticut poll showed 83 percent of respondents
backed allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana in such cases.

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, introduced the legislation on
the Senate floor. But the four other senators from southwestern
Connecticut - Bob Duff, D-Norwalk; Judith Freedman, R-Westport; John
McKinney, R-Fairfield; and William Nickerson, R-Greenwich - opposed
the bill.

The legislation passed last night would allow a doctor to certify an
adult patient's use of marijuana after determining he or she has a
debilitating condition and could potentially benefit from marijuana.
Patients and their primary caregivers would then register with the
state Department of Consumer Protection.

The patient and the primary caregiver would be limited to growing no
more than four plants, each having a maximum height of 4 feet, in an
indoor secure facility.

"It's rare we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will have
an extraordinary effect on the well-being of those who are the sickest
amongst us," McDonald said in introducing the bill.

But Nickerson said it was not wise for state legislators to make
decisions best left to the Federal Drug Administration.

"They are legally authorized, medically equipped and have decades of
experience," Nickerson said.

McKinney said although it is a "proven medical fact" marijuana use can
prove damaging, its medical benefits are less conclusive.

He also was concerned that the plants grown for medical purposes would
not be destroyed afterward and would contribute to the drug trade.

"And that marijuana then goes back out onto the street, maybe into the
hands of some kids," McKinney said. "(The bill) is very well-intended,
but I think there's a lot of room for error here."

Freedman introduced a few amendments that would either provide
additional restrictions or call for further study of the bill.

But even if any of her amendments were adopted, she said she still
would vote against the bill.

Freedman also had a message for the ill residents who may have been
watching the debate.

"We hear your pain. We feel your pain," she said. "But there has to be
a way to make it subside with legal means."

Duff did not participate in the debate, but afterward said the bill is
flawed because anyone who takes advantage of the legislation would be
breaking the law.

"You cannot, legally, get the first seed . . . under federal law. Your
doctor can't give you the first seed. You can't mail order the seed,
legally," Duff said. "Our country abides by the rule of law, so
therefore this is not a bill we really should be debating in the
legislature."

McDonald said afterward: "It would still be illegal under federal law,
although I can't point to one case in the country where the federal
government has arrested somebody for purchasing marijuana seeds for
medicinal purposes."

He said the bill could be challenged in federal court.

"But now we're going to have 13 states," he said. "I'm pretty certain
we're close to a tipping point where the FDA will be forced into a
position of funding studies they've consistently refused to
undertake."