Stirring the pot, tweaking the law
The timing couldn’t have been better. Montana PBS aired last week, “Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis,” a new documentary that reveals through extensive interviews with doctors, researchers and patients how cannabis acts on the brain and in the body to treat intractable symptoms of many diseases that fail to respond to other remedies.
The timing is right for two reasons. The Montana Legislature is debating dozens of proposals concerning medical marijuana; at the same time, Republican efforts to cut federal spending would yank funding for public broadcasting, a rare outlet for serious debate of important public issues.
Firstly, dozens of bills would repeal or rework the medical marijuana law, which 55 percent of Montana voters approved in a 2004 initiative, similar to California’s. But like most ballot initiatives, it demonstrated the wishes of voters but was sketchy on details of regulation, which have fallen mostly to the counties.
Extensive testimony in the state capitol last week revealed a prevailing sentiment that while voters still want access to the drug, the law needs tweaking to rein in the proliferation of dispensaries and the issuing of cards to minors. HB 161 would repeal the initiative outright. That bill may not pass but rewriting the regulations seems too arduous a task for legislators who meet biennially for a mere 90 days.
Following PBS’ broadcast of “Clear the Smoke,” a free forum in Bozeman featured the documentary’s executive producer, a local oncologist (interviewed in the film), a city commissioner, a law enforcement officer and a state official, who cleared up many misconceptions about the procedure by which patients may obtain a “green card” (nothing to do with immigration).
The forum was packed (generally not the case). PBS producer Anna Rau gave a balanced presentation, fact focused, as was her film. Audience reaction was strongly for retaining legalization of medical cannabis.
What we learned: Doctors don’t write prescriptions for marijuana, they simply verify the patient’s condition. The oncologist stated he had recommended cannabis to patients for whom prescription medications to combat side effects of chemotherapy weren’t working.
Patients then apply for a card to the county, which sends the applications to the state, which then approves (or not) and sends the forms back to the county. This takes up to 60 days, which in one doctor’s view, “is an awfully long time for a cancer patient.”
We also learned that most local law enforcement officers oppose repeal saying it would complicate their job, making it virtually impossible to know who was legally entitled to possess the one ounce of marijuana and who wasn’t. That would, I assume, mean recreational users or possibly patients with a card issued in another of the 15 or so states that currently permit medical marijuana use.
And I thought when we got rid of John Ashcroft we’d get beyond all this foolishness.
Wrong again.
After the forum my friends and I had our own discussion. The consensus was that the state law should be reworked but not repealed. We all agreed with the fellow who stood up and asked the panel if there had ever been a documented case of someone dying of an overdose of marijuana. That would be negative. According to Rau, for those who smoke (rather than eat marijuana-laced brownies) the body signals to stop smoking as soon as the pain or nausea subsides. Doctors agreed there’s no known overdose for cannabis.
A friend whose daughter died of cancer said she used the legal drug Marinol for six months with good results. Most doctors seem to agree that the drug, taken orally, is absorbed more slowly than inhaled marijuana smoke. It’s also very expensive.
Most of us agreed that if we were diagnosed with a terminal disease (other than old age, which looms over us all) we would prefer marijuana to conventional treatment and pharmaceuticals. Incidentally, an estimated 400,000 deaths annually in this country are attributed to legal prescription drugs (interactions, overdoses and inappropriate prescribing to certain age groups).
Since I’ve experienced adverse reactions to most pharmaceuticals, I’d be willing to try cannabis if I ever needed it. Though I never used it recreationally, I once knew many people who smoked pot. One teen even used it to boost her appetite when she was battling anorexia. It worked, though I’m not sure if that’s on the list of legally accepted maladies.
My friends may have been shocked when I said marijuana should be removed from Schedule 1. It seems to me we spend way too much money and effort apprehending, trying and incarcerating people who are no danger to society. It’s been my experience that smoking pot tamps down aggressive behavior while alcohol generally increases it. That’s not to say I would bring back prohibition. We all know how well that worked.
While we’re debating legislation, I’m in favor of federal funding for public broadcasting. In large cities, it’s not so difficult to get subscribers to fund NPR and PBS. But in small rural areas, where cable is not available, or beyond the means of most, public stations are the only way people can hear reasonable debate on issues that affect us all.
Besides, we don’t need more pledge breaks.