A Minnesota state Senator is working to reduce the discrepancies in how lawmakers — namely, those within his own party — view medical marijuana. He’s hoping the substance that has proven to have medicinal benefits can be legalized before the state Legislature ends its latest session on May 19.
Democrats hold a majority in both chambers of the Minnesota state Legislature and Governor Mark Dayton is also a Democrat, but passing a medical marijuana legalization bill seems to have never been more difficult for state lawmakers — even though a majority of Minnesotans support medical marijuana use.
Some may blame Republicans for holding up the legislation, but the party most responsible for holding up the passage of any widespread and helpful legislation for those suffering from specific medical conditions such as cancer, HIV, AIDS, epilepsy, glaucoma and severe, debilitating pain, is the same one that introduced the legislation to help Minnesotans: the Democratic Party.
On Sunday, state Sen. Scott Dibble, a Democrat representing Minneapolis, sent a letter to Gov. Dayton and Rep. Carly Melin, a Democrat representing Hibbing, asking them to support a form of medical marijuana legislation that would provide relief for Minnesotans “who have exhausted all other treatment options, while at the same time providing for sound public safety and public health policy.”
Specifically, Dibble asked Dayton and Melin to support a measure that passed the Senate last week and has received support from the majority of medical marijuana advocates, even though further restrictions have been added to the already strict proposed program in recent weeks such as banning patients from smoking marijuana and not allowing home cultivation.
In his letter, Dibble outlined areas in which other legalization proposals fall short — for example, in regards to matters such as public safety, the types of marijuana available to patients, the medical conditions and symptoms that qualify a person for inclusion in the state’s medical marijuana program, patient access to the drug and the cost to taxpayers, among others — before explaining that the “goal of this letter is to convey my very serious concerns with the House proposal that may prove it to be inadequate and unworkable.”
Influence of law enforcement
Though Dibble’s bill safely passed the Senate in a 48-18 vote, the legislation has not received support from law enforcement — a key requirement for the governor. Aware that law enforcement’s disapproval could ultimately spell trouble for the bill’s future, Melin, the representative who proposed the House version of Dibble’s bill last year, introduced another piece of legislation on May 1 that law enforcement has expressed “neutral” feelings toward.
The problem for many medical marijuana legalization advocates, though, is that Melin’s new bill does not create a medical marijuana program similar to those in any of the 21 states or Washington, D.C., that have legalized the medicinal use of the drug. Instead, Melin’s bill creates a very limited clinical trial for those suffering from seizures, cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, Tourette’s syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease.
Medical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and intractable pain were not included in the measure because Melin said that some medical conditions are best treated by smoking marijuana, which is not allowed under the bill, as per the suggestion of law enforcement.
Another concern is that under the clinical trial, some of the patients would receive marijuana and others would be given a placebo. Parents of children who suffer from seizures would be able to ensure their child is not given a placebo, but adults would not be guaranteed to receive marijuana.
When it comes to patients taking their medicine, like Dibble’s bill, Melin’s latest bill bans smoking the drug, meaning ingestion mediums such as joints and bongs would still not be legal. While the use of vaporizers would be allowed, a patient would only be able to legally use a vaporizer in the presence of a medical professional. Some medical marijuana patients have pointed out that this is simply not feasible.
“My severe muscle spasms and pain are not confined to a 9-to-5, Monday through Friday businessweek,” Patrick McClellan, a Minnesota resident who suffers from a rare form of muscular dystrophy and benefits from the use of medical marijuana with the help of a vaporizer, told Minnesotans for Compassionate Care. “I use medical marijuana when I begin to have extreme spasms that can last for hours. I would not be able to get in a car and drive to my doctor’s office, assuming they are even open and available to see me.”
Despite the concerns expressed by those in the medical marijuana community, the House passed the bill on Friday in an 86-39 vote. Shortly after the vote, Gov. Dayton issued a letter to state lawmakers — specifically, Dibble and Melin — saying that he was willing to sign the legislation the House had passed into law. He called it a “superior” piece of legislation to the bill passed by the Senate, since it would study the effects of the alternative medicine and would create fewer dispensaries.
Finding a compromise
Because the Senate and House have passed two very different laws, a consensus must be achieved before a medical marijuana bill makes its way to Dayton’s desk. The Senate could choose to accept the House’s version of the legalization legislation, since Dayton has pledged to sign off on the legislation. But thankfully for many who Minnesotans who stand to benefit from a medical marijuana program, that doesn’t appear to be an option the Senate wants to consider.
Both bills will now be sent to a Senate-House Conference Committee, where negotiations will be held and a single bill will be created and sent to both chambers for an up or down vote. If both the Senate and House pass the bill, it would go to the governor’s office for approval.
Given that Melin’s bill is so limited in scope, medical marijuana legalization advocates have found themselves asking House lawmakers to support a form of medical legalization that helps as many Minnesotans as possible — like the Senate did — and for the Senate to not kowtow to law enforcement — like the House did. In other words, there is a campaign to push for a compromise that resembles the Senate’s bill more than the House’s.
In his letter, Dibble proposed that the compromise bill largely reflect what the Senate already passed, but he suggested that a medical marijuana study also be conducted. That way, Dibble explained, further information could be obtained regarding the health effects of medical marijuana, while thousands of Minnesotans would still be granted access to a medicine that offers them the relief they need.
Advocates: House bill not helpful
At the time of writing, it was not clear how receptive lawmakers were to Dibble’s proposed compromise, but medical marijuana advocates have applauded the push to keep the bill as close to the Senate’s version as possible.
In an action alert issued late last week, the Minnesota chapter of the marijuana legalization advocacy group the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws said the organization was not in support of Melin’s bill, since it helps very few people, if any. It asked members of the public to encourage their state representatives to support a more inclusive and workable medical marijuana program.
“Although MN NORML believes the best way to ensure access to medical marijuana is to legalize marijuana for all responsible adult uses, we also support all reforms of marijuana prohibition laws. In this limited sense, we support the [Senate’s] version of the medical marijuana bill and also the House amendment by Rep. Pat Garofalo,” the organization wrote, referring to Garofalo’s move to add the marijuana legalization bill as an amendment to a larger health measure.
Brandan Borgos is a Minnesota Attorney General candidate who is seeking the endorsement of the state’s Independence Party. The Minnesota NORML board member and Minneapolis-based lawyer explained the Senate’s bill is “far superior” to the House’s version for multiple reasons, such as how the House bill costs Minnesotans millions while only helping about 5,000 people. The Senate’s proposal on the other hand, Borgos said, funds itself in fees and helps an estimated 35,000 people right from the start.
Another reason Borgos and his colleagues at MN NORML have called for House members and Gov. Dayton to support the Senate’s proposed legislation is because Dibble’s bill is not only the more compassionate legislation, he said, but it’s one that “does more to address the stated public safety concerns of the law enforcement lobby union bosses.”
“If they wanted a bill with more security they would want the Senate bill,” Borgos told MintPress News. “If they want a bill that doesn’t function, they would want the House bill. Their opposition isn’t as much about security or public safety as it is getting a bill that is unworkable.
“Something is going to Dayton’s desk and I really would rather it be the Senate bill.”
Thomas Gallagher, a Republican candidate for state House district 61B whose platform includes legalizing marijuana, echoed Borgos.
“If Minnesota truly wants to provide needed compassionate relief to the sick, ill and dying in Minnesota, let’s hope the legislature’s Conference Committee agrees to send the Senate version for final approval to the House, Senate and Governor,” Gallagher wrote on his law blog on Sunday.
In Sunday’s blog post, Gallagher explained that he supports the Senate’s version for multiple reasons. One reason, he wrote, is that it “relies upon the tried and true method of dispensaries, which has been used for years in other states with legal medical marijuana programs.” The House version, however, would distribute marijuana in a way that’s never been done before: through pharmacies.
Many legalization advocates have questioned whether Melin’s “legalization” would even be workable, since marijuana would still be illegal on the federal level. They have also been vocal about the issues that could arise if the clinical trial program were somehow able to be implemented — which could be as late as 2017, instead of July 2015 under the Senate’s version. They have noted, in particular, a lack of protections for doctors who could risk having their licenses revoked by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Room for improvement
While the Senate’s bill has garnered more support than the House’s version, medical marijuana legalization advocates have not fully let the Senate off the hook for agreeing to strict rules such as the block on home cultivation and the ban on smoking marijuana, since smoking has proven more effective or is a preferred ingestion method for some patients.
Borgos also forecast an issue with prohibiting home cultivation. This could not only delay a patient’s ability to obtain his or her medicine, he said, but it also “takes away a safeguard against high prices, product unavailability.”
Though legalization advocates admit that the Senate version isn’t without its faults, Borgos said it’s better than Melin’s bill because it doesn’t create a monopoly and it offers more of a compromise than the House-passed bill. The House bill, he said, appears to have been written to appease law enforcement, possibly in order for some lawmakers to ensure they would have support from the law enforcement community during elections this fall.
As Borgos pointed out, the Senate’s version isn’t exactly what medical marijuana advocates had hoped for, but it’s a step in the right direction. Changes can be made to expand the program, too, as other states, like Michigan, have demonstrated in recent years.
“When legislators and the general public are more educated about cannabis, I hope to see most of these fear-fueled provisions repealed,” Borgos said.