MEDICAL POT LAW OPPOSED BY DOUGLAS

MONTPELIER -- Republican Gov. James Douglas said Wednesday he would oppose
legalizing marijuana use for people with diseases like AIDS and cancer
because it would still be illegal under federal law and there are other
drugs available to help those suffering from such conditions.

"I have tremendous empathy for those who suffer from chronic pain and who
feel they would benefit from medical marijuana," Douglas said. "But I think
it would be awkward to legalize a substance that could still the subject of
prosecution by federal authorities."

Douglas praised the work of advocates and those who participated on a study
commission this summer that was set up after a bill passed the
GOP-controlled House last year but couldn't be reconciled with a Senate
version.

He said they should focus their efforts on changing federal law.

"I really think the proper forum for this debate is at the Food and Drug
Administration," which regulates prescription drugs, Douglas said. "They've
authorized the use of marinol, a THC-based drug, and could certainly agree
to extend that authorization to marijuana if the FDA believes it appropriate."

Douglas said he was also concerned about the message that legalization for
medical purposes would send, though he said that was a secondary consideration.

Douglas' statements came as lawmakers worked to craft a final version of
the bill. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Sears,
D-Bennington, said he hoped the bill could be on its way to the Senate
Finance Committee by the end of the week and on the floor for debate when
the Legislature returns from the town meeting break.

The bill, modeled closely after the one that passed the House last year
with tri-partisan support, requires a doctor's certification that the
patient suffers from one of several specified conditions and needs
marijuana to relieve symptoms.

The Department of Health would determine whether the person was eligible,
and patients who were rejected could appeal, though that mechanism is still
being worked out. In addition, a person could register to be a patient's
caregiver, and the Health Department would keep the records confidential
unless police needed to verify the information.

Persons authorized to use medical marijuana couldn't smoke it in any public
place, and could not be under the influence while driving or in other
circumstances when they could endanger others.

In addition, a registered user or caregiver could also grow medical
marijuana in a locked indoor facility and transport it in a locked
container, an effort to prevent confusion by police. Since a search warrant
would be needed to look in the container or search a home, that would
provide time to search the database and determine whether the owner was
exempt from prosecution.

Police and the Vermont attorney general's office had opposed the bill on
grounds similar to the governor's and because it would force patients to go
to drug dealers for pot or seeds. Douglas acknowledged their concerns had
played a role in his decision.

"We've been advised by the Drug Enforcement Agency that they not only
reserve the right to prosecute people for possession and use of marijuana,
but state officials who administer the program," he said. "That got my
attention. ... They haven't done it anywhere else, but they have notified
us that they reserve the right to do that."

Advocates for medical marijuana were downcast by Douglas' position.

"We're disappointed," said Virginia Renfrew, a lobbyist for the HIV Public
Policy Project, who served on the summer study committee. "The fact is that
there are eight states that have taken the bold step to allow seriously ill
people to use medical marijuana in the privacy of their home under the
guidance of their doctors ... and we have not seen any doctors or patients
arr ested."

She said Vermont's law, if passed, would be "the strictest in the country,"
and questioned whether the federal authorities would seek out and arrest
program participants or administrators.

"Of course they're going to say that, but let's look at the eight states
that do this," Renfrew said. "In five, they're run by state programs ...
has one state official been arrested? What message would that send if the
feds came in and arrested a governor because they had a medical marijuana
program in their state?"

Advocates for medical marijuana have pointed to testimony from AIDS
patients and others who say that they can't take oral medications like
marinol and that it doesn't work well for them anyway.

The summer study committee concluded that "although scientific evidence is
limited, marijuana has some medical value in reducing patient suffering ...
and, consequently, the General Assembly may determine that compassion ...
requires that it be made available to those patients for whom it will
provide some relief not attainable with other prescribed medications."

Renfrew was blunt: "If you talk to somebody who's seriously ill they'll say
(marinol) is not very effective and it's extremely costly."

While the bill appears to have support in the Democratically controlled
Senate, its passage in the House is still far from guaranteed. Opponents
like Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland City, said they would continue to fight it.

"Coming from Rutland where we have such a big drug problem ... my biggest
concern is the message it sends," DePoy said. He worried that keeping
marijuana out of the hands of those who were not patients would be
difficult, and that medical marijuana could be a first step toward
recreational legalization.

And while House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Rep. Margaret Flory,
R-Pittsford, who supported the bill last year, said she believed the bill
could pass her committee, she wasn't sure that was the case in other
committees, particularly the Health and Welfare Committee chaired by Rep.
Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town.

Douglas acknowledged he would discuss the matter with House leaders, but
wouldn't say whether he'd veto the bill if it landed on his desk.

"I don't want to issue veto threats," he said.