Medical Marijuana Measures Considered

[Jim Finnel]

When it comes to medical marijuana in Montana, it's easy to stir up a hornet's nest of controversy -- although medical marijuana 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 says 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, says if a medical-marijuana patient or "caregiver" is driving and involved in a traffic accident or traffic stop by police, the police can demand a blood test of that person.

If the person refuses, their medical-marijuana registration card can be revoked, and if the test shows they have a certain level of marijuana residue in their bloodstream, the card can be revoked for life.

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

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

Daubert, who represents the medical-marijuana group Montana Patients and Families United, says he's 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 their 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 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 Wednesday afternoon; Jackson's bill is before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning.

Rep. Julie French, D-Scobey, the sponsor of HB73, says she's 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 says 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 says.

HB73 also would allow someone with an incurable medical condition to renew their 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 says 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 though they weren't driving while impaired, he says.

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

Jackson says 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 says.

Still, Jackson says 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 says.


News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Helena Independent Record (MT)
Copyright: 2009 Helena Independent Record
Contact: irstaff@helenair.com
Website: helenair.com
Author: Mike Dennison,

 

[Dr. 215]

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

If the person refuses, their medical-marijuana registration card can be revoked, and if the test shows they have a certain level of marijuana residue in their bloodstream, the card can be revoked for life.

As stated later in this article a blood sample does not prove that you are impaired during the time of driving, it can stay in your system for weeks.

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

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

Lets see some statistics then Mr. Jackson. Do you have anything to prove these claims about stoners killing people?

"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 says.

Circular argumentation never works...

This guy is just trying to slowdown the process by seeming like he is trying to protect the citizens. In actuality what he is doing is hurting the citizens of Montana in rural areas who cannot get to a physician to get their medicine.

 

[Keith Lake]

^^ I agree with Dr.215

Someday we'll have a quick and accurate test for THC, not just the inactive metabolite COOH THC that stays in the system for weeks

While I'm generally opposed to government testing, I'd be far less opposed to testing for cause, if the freaking test was accurate (like the alcohol test is)

I do like the fact they are using the word "prescribed" as opposed to "recommended". This is more assertive but may cause doctors more problems with the ONDCP (unless of course Obama does something about it)

 

[FastLan3]

^^ I agree with Dr.215

Someday we'll have a quick and accurate test for THC, not just the inactive metabolite COOH THC that stays in the system for weeks

While I'm generally opposed to government testing, I'd be far less opposed to testing for cause, if the freaking test was accurate (like the alcohol test is)

I do like the fact they are using the word "prescribed" as opposed to "recommended". This is more assertive but may cause doctors more problems with the ONDCP (unless of course Obama does something about it)

Lets get things back in perspective, OK...

1.) All empirical studies show very low risk levels while driving even with high doses of marijuana intake. Not to mention the fact that tests revealed people to be more cautious and aware while driving under the influence of marijuana.

2.)We have a simple test for indication of impairment ( sobriety test ). Which should be enough. We allow further testing for drinking and driving because, there is a clear and distinct problem that causes serious accidents. This is simple NOT true for a person under the influence of marijuana.

3.)The test for other drugs, pharmaceuticals, m*th, etc... is a sobriety test, why should this be different for marijuana.

4.)You, need to remember the ones making these particular laws are not there to protect us but, to control us any way possible. They don't care what evidence there is to refute their claims, they only want to destroy what they seemly don't like. They are very biased in there agenda using misunderstood fears and allegation propagated throughout our history dealing with marijuana.

5.)The first thing you should be concerned with is the fact that Jackson ignores that marijuana stays in the system for an extended period of time, this is a BIG RED BULLS EYE.

6.)The big idea here is reasonable cause, vehicle violation have been allowed stretch LEO abilities to continue their investigation if there is “reasonable cause”. You are pulled over for a tail-light being out, the LEO smells pot, so then they take a blood sample, even though the person was driving fine.

7.)Next thing is a IQ test when you get pulled over to see if you are smart enough at the time to drive.

 

[Keith Lake]

1.) All empirical studies show very low risk levels while driving even with high doses of marijuana intake. Not to mention the fact that tests revealed people to be more cautious and aware while driving under the influence of marijuana.

I agree, but unless you're saying there is no level where there should a restriction I think we are in agreement. I'm in favor of an appropriate cut off based on where impairment occurs. It's clear to anyone who's even partaken that awareness and self consciousness is heightened under the influence. My point is that setting a level where driving should be restricted is not unreasonable. It has to be impairment though, not the coincidental presence of the residual metabolite

2.)We have a simple test for indication of impairment ( sobriety test ). Which should be enough. We allow further testing for drinking and driving because, there is a clear and distinct problem that causes serious accidents. This is simple NOT true for a person under the influence of marijuana.

So maybe you are saying there is no level of cannabis intake where driving should be restricted. If so, respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. It's also possible I'm misunderstanding your point. When you say sobriety test are you referring to alcohol or to a roadside DRE?

3.)The test for other drugs, pharmaceuticals, m*th,etc... is a sobriety test, why should this be different for marijuana.

I assume here that by sobriety test you are referring to the DRE (drug recognition expert) walk the line, say the alphabet etc. If so, I disagree. These are subjective measures and enable LEO's opinion to effect the outcome. Testing is quantitative

4.)You, need to remember the ones making these particular laws are not there to protect us but, to control us any way possible. They don't care what evidence there is to refute their claims, they only want to destroy what they seemly don't like. They are very biased in there agenda using misunderstood fears and allegation propagated throughout our history dealing with marijuana.

I agree with this generalization

5.)The first thing you should be concerned with is the fact that Jackson ignores that marijuana stays in the system for an extended period of time, this is a BIG RED BULLS EYE.

This is my point, we can't tolerate DUID based on testing for metabolites. It doesn't test impariment only prior use (which is none of LEOs business in my view)

6.)The big idea here is reasonable cause, vehicle violation have been allowed stretch LEO abilities to continue their investigation if there is "reasonable cause". You are pulled over for a tail-light being out, the LEO smells pot, so then they take a blood sample, even though the person was driving fine.

I completely agree that LEO makes use of any excuse to justify their fishing expeditions. I also agree that without reasonable cause for impairment there should be no testing. My point here is that they use the blood to test for Carboxy THC and active THC, but we are prosecuted if they find either. They should only be able to prosecute for the active THC (which in my understanding is present in blood for about 5 hours give or take) if it's above a reasonable threshold (which will have to be set by corelating impariment with % blood content) Now they use the limit of detection and in many states have zero tolerence; my argument is that this is unfair.

7.)Next thing is a IQ test when you get pulled over to see if you are smart enough at the time to drive.

I'm not sure I'd vote against this (kidding).

Thanks for the great discussion

Soniq420

 

[FastLan3]

Thank you for the reply.

Sobriety test or as you say D.R.E. has a high potential for LEO to abuse and harass. Unless, the LEO was required to rec. video of the test. Sounds silly but, I think it should be protocol already. I am sure LEO would be all up in arms if they needed to do this, despite the fact this could be in their own favor.

You have informed me of something I was not aware of (active THC level). Although, if this is true, it doesn't consider the extreme tolerance levels of the individual. I might add, but am not sure, how the test of (active THC) will differ from strains that cause different effects? There is Cannabis that can be smoked in large quantities and still have very little effect on the person, or potent cannabis that relaxes the person spasms, but leaves them headstrong and even in most cases in certain medical conditions allows them to go throughout their day (driving included). Also, I would like to know how this test would be effect by ingested cannabis?

My big problem with this, is the people in charge, their abusive nature towards the use of this plant. I believe we have agreement on this...?

If we are to look at the evidence, and all would take it seriously, we could come to a safe and desired conclusion. People want know there are safe drivers on the roads. Well, people have to let go of the dangerous stigma attached to marijuana, and Government officials need to stop lying..!

I feel we need to fight what ever proposal put forth by the government. I conclude this by viewing the facts. The government does not agree with marijuana, and people are working really hard to crack down on the pot smokers, because they simply don't like it.

Until this changes, any proposal brought in to regulated the use of cannabis will be lacking and only allow LEO to take further advantage. Their purpose is to undermine their citizens, very sad situation.

 

[Keith Lake]

HI Fastlan3

I think you and I are in complete agreement on the nature of LEO and the lies the government uses to try to persecute we plant lovers.

Sobriety test or as you say D.R.E. has a high potential for LEO to abuse and harass. Unless, the LEO was required to rec. video of the test. Sounds silly but, I think it should be protocol already. I am sure LEO would be all up in arms if they needed to do this, despite the fact this could be in their own favor.

That's a great idea if only there was a way to implement.

This DRE stuff is so subjective, I guess I'm pessimistic that anything will keep LEO in check except for quantitative data that can't be successfully lied about in court.

You have informed me of something I was not aware of (active THC level). Although, if this is true, it doesn't consider the extreme tolerance levels of the individual. I might add, but am not sure, how the test of (active THC) will differ from strains that cause different effects? There is Cannabis that can be smoked in large quantities and still have very little effect on the person, or potent cannabis that relaxes the person spasms, but leaves them headstrong and even in most cases in certain medical conditions allows them to go throughout their day (driving included). Also, I would like to know how this test would be effect by ingested cannabis?

Yes, unfortunately for we plant lovers, the most common detection tests in regular use is for carboxy THC (sometimes written as COOH THC). This is the inactive metabolite or what is left after the liver breaks down the actual THC. This inactive and inert metabolite isn't flushed from the body (generally) for weeks.


The actual THC is broken down pretty rapidly i.e. around 5 hours (when smoked). They can and do test for THC when they take blood tests. I would think (though I don't know) that eaten cannabis would result in the actual THC remaining in the system for many more hours than just 5; because the high lasts longer when eaten. What I mean by that is that the concentration profile tends to be longer, slower to present with a slow decline due to the way THC enters the bloodstream more slowly through digestion than from smoking.

I don't think the different strains and phenotypes would effect the detection time at all. My understanding of the differences between strains is the change in levels of the other primary psychoactive cannabinoids (CBD cannabidiol and CBN cannabinol). There are at least 66 identified cannabinoids in our favorite plant.

So I understand that the drug test is only for THC, the difference in effect is the varying ratios of CBD and CBN (which aren't tested for).

On another note, I just read that they've developed a test for CBD and CBN and are now using it to kick marinol (100% THC) patients off their programs. They can now detect whether marinol patients are smoking as well (where previously marinol patient had a bulletproof excuse why they had THC in their system)