Medical-Marijuana Moratorium Passes, 4-1
Lots of discussion, and many, many opponents — the Great Falls City Commission meeting tonight lasted exactly 4 hours 20 minutes. Whew.
In the end, the medical-marijuana moratorium — which effectively prohibits any marijuana-related business for a period of “approximately” 90 days (with no actual sunset clause) — passed with only Mary Jolley voting no.
My impression is that the ordinance ultimately passed based on assurances from City staff that the moratorium was just a harmless, ordinary “cooling off” period — like the one that happened, Commissioner Bronson said, a few years ago with respect to “sexually oriented businesses.” The difference, it would seem to me, is that there are many caregivers already operating as businesses out of their homes or offices. This moratorium’s language would shut down all of these people — though of course that is merely theoretical, given what we know of the enforcement of City ordinances. Small-time caregivers and, of course, illegal dealers will evade this temporary law. The caregivers who’ve taken out office space — those who have attempted to comply with the law and be open in their transactions — will be the first and worst targeted, if only because they’re the most visible and, ironically, the City is aware of them because they’ve attempted to file permits. Will the City turn them out? That remains to be seen.
A lot of unhappy pot-heads patients at the meeting. Not all of them cogent, and only 1 in 3 making a really positive impression. A large number of them were out-of-towners (and I’m going to leave you to guess which university town in western Montana they were from). But they did have a point about being treated shabbily. People don’t like submitting paperwork to a city government, only to have one’s check and paperwork returned a month later with a sticky note telling you to shut down your business (true story about the City’s dealing with one caregiver, forthcoming in a magazine piece I’m writing). Whatever one thinks of it, the act of “caregiving for a reasonable profit” is legally protected behavior under Montana law. How we navigate that is interesting stuff.
Oh — and a shout out to marijuana critic and occasional ECW commenter Dr Paul Gorsuch, who testified in favor of the ordinance. (Doctor — you were sitting two seats away from me, and I meant to talk with you, but was distracted. Apologies!)
I think they would be much better served to simply enforce the law as it exists.
Gregg, you talked to Parker, why isn’t he talking up that angle? Does he disagree with your plain English reading of the law?
What’s all the fuss about? The city has already set a standard that following ordinances is optional.
My discussions with Chad were off the record.
Also, kudos to Travis for restraint in not bringing up the the angry midget screaming about what a circus this whole event was. Even my thirteen year-old was laughing at that slice of Bizarro World irony.
Can’t everyone get in a circle, pass a doobie, and just chill out over this?
Gregg, do you think enforcing the law as it exists would have any impact on the legitimization and proliferation of recreational use under the guise of “medical need”; as that is what the state numbers suggest is happening. Would be interested in your thoughts.
Also, what do people make of the fact that most of the well spoken marijuana advocates were from out of town, and do you agree with that observation.
Finally, Travis sorry I missed you. Would have liked to make contact.
Wolfpack, I was saving that slice of hilarity for my paid work. And Dr Gorsuch — I agree with that observation. I do know of a couple local opponents who remained quiet so as not to make their businesses known.
I could hardly believe the attorney from Billings who bragged about his daily use for arthritis and that it didn’t affect his professional life. His proof being that he serves as a part time judge in Billings. Is it legal to be high on the bench? If so, it shouldn’t be.
How many lawyers and judges do you suppose are “daily users” of alcohol without it affecting their professional lives?
“How many lawyers and judges do you suppose are “daily users” of alcohol without it affecting their professional lives?”
John- If they are using alcohol as a crutch to get through the day, I would say none. We call them alcoholics and they are generally thought of with low regard. Is that that the same standard we should apply to the MM user who prefers the intoxicating side effects of MM as opposed to the non-intoxicating effects of traditional medicine? If so, then I agree.
I thought the doctor’s point about the age of the pot patients was very interesting. I hope someone at the Tribune or one of the other papers will followup to determine what the age breakdown is statewide for those who are getting these certificates, or whatever you call them.
Of course we agree that legal professionals should be unintoxicated while on the job, absolutely. (An aside though: The non-intoxicating effects of pharmaceuticals? Funny.)
The ages of registered patients is analyzed by the state here: http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/medicalmarijuana/mmpregistryinformation.pdf
Be cautious about judging every 20-something registrant as a stoner-scammer.
The solution to all this hand-wringing about gray areas, I will say again, is to drop the “medical” from the equation and allow grownups to participate in a legal regulated market.
“(An aside though: The non-intoxicating effects of pharmaceuticals? Funny.)”
John- The attorney/judge in question said he quit taking the anti-inflammatories his physician prescribed and replaced it with MM. That’s a choice to be high instead of being treated and most likely results in the acceleration of his arthritic disease.
I know several stoner scammers who view thier MM cards as just legal cover for thier pot habit. I agree this debate would be more honest with the term “medical” dropped. It would also prevent the sick from being duped into believing many of these doubtful MM treatments that are most likely just smoke screens for personal drug use and legalization of the drug production businesses.
The science is good for medical marijuana across a broad range of ailments; the extent to which research is not available is directly caused by the federal government banning virtually all research on the topic. safeaccessnow.org has lots of science for those interested.
I have no doubt that many have gotten their cards to be exempt from arrest and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it endangers the program due to the (predictable, not unreasonable) objections from people who thought it was only for the “sick and dying”. On the other hand, exempting people from arrest for personal marijuana use is the primary goal of the organization I founded in 1998.
What’s the name of the Billings attorney who testified? I didn’t see a mention in the Trib.
WolfPack.
Some of your quote from previous above post: “the non-intoxicating effects of traditional medicine? If so, then I agree”.
I suppose you mean the kinds of legal medications that say “do not drive when taking this medication”.
Now would you suppose there are judges and lawyers who may have to take these sort of med’s and still show up for work?
John, finally something we can agree on – remove the word medical.
As far as the idea of the “federal government banning virtually all research on the topic” this is a popular and oft repeated myth – - there at at least 275 clinical trials underway studying various aspects of using marijuana in medical settings. Many funded by the government (clinicaltrials.gov). Many of the studies you referenced at safeaccessnow.org were funded with federal dollars or federal/private combo’s.
In terms of the assertion that “the science is good for medical marijuana across a broad range of ailments” maybe we should agree on terms. If you mean there is a lot of good basic animal and human science to indicate that the cannabinoids might, could or should be helpful, then yes I agree. If you mean that marijuana has been demonstrated as safe and effective for treating specific diagnoses by randomized controlled prospective studies on humans (the standard required of all other meds) then no – the web site you referenced does not show that data. Some of their citations run counter to the your assertions.
Perhaps I missed one or two, but here is a rough breakdown of their citation headings and number of studies that would qualify as randomized, controlled, prospective human trials.
Gastrointestinal – 1 study which only demonstrated that cannabinoids do not increase the viral count in HIV patients.
Chronic pain – Zero studies cited; although such studies do exist none were cited here. The studies that exist indicate modest effect on certain types of pain, in relatively small groups, and possibly great promise, but in need of much more investigation – which is currently going on and in part funded by the feds. No clear advantage yet demonstrated between smoke or pill.
Multiple Sclerosis – Zero qualifying studies cited. Some do exist for aspects of MS pain (~36 patients) and spasicity.
Cancer – Zero qualifying studies cited.
Arthritis – Zero qualifying studies cited.
Movement Disorders – Zero qualifying studies cited.
Aging – Zero qualifying studies cited
HIV – Zero qualifying studies cited.
Some good trials studying the impact of cannabinoids on nausea and weight loss in cancer and HIV exist – none cited. At least one of those studies indicate no difference between the pill marinol and the smoke.
Assertions and rational extrapolation abound, but proof by the type of studies normally required of all other meds now coming to market is sparse in general and for the most part absent from the website you mentioned.
If I missed one great, bring it on. Marijuana is “proven” to be safe and efficacious in a broad range of ailments? Then prove it – site the human trials – randomized, prospective controlled. Many of the web sites make broad assertions with a lot of possibly consistent basic science, but no trials (Phase III trials in the med lingo) to prove the idea actually works. Don’t like the standard then lets decide what it should be for marijuana and why that drug should be different than any other. Or we could just drop the words medical and science from many of the claims.
P.S. Regarding the judge from Billings. Some studies indicate that some cognitive defects may persist up to 4-6 weeks after cessation of marijuana. Do not know particulars or if important ones for “executive function”.
Some evidence for marijuana having a long term impact on attention and tendency to paranoia – which could be important to a judge. Do not know incidence or severity.
Dr. Gorsuch, thank you for participating.
Medical Letter January 25, 2010 (considered a very reliable and unbiased resource regarding medications, no drug company advertising or dollars).
Medical Marijuana
Conclusion: Medical marijuana may be effective for treatment of nausea, anorexia, pain and some other conditions, but published data supporting its efficacy for treating patients with intractable cancer pain are limited, dosage is not well standardized, and cannabis is often poorly tolerated, especially by older patients.
I am not sure if the entire article can be read without subscription at medicalletter.org . Dr. Gorsuch’s statements reflect what real science there is about cannabis.
Let me tell you folks who are using the mmj program for reasons other than medical purposes are risking the lives of those that are sick and suffering. This program has a purpose that cannot be overlooked due to those who abuse it. Let the medical marijuana program serve those in need for medical purpose, and if you want to use it recreational y join those who are working to change the law. Please have a conscience and realize by distorting and using the law for your personal gain you will end up restricting access suffering people need. I would like to see the allowable plant amount per patient increased, but with all the abuse the truly suffering will continue to suffer even more due to greed and the opposite might happen.
WolfPack….do you work for a pharmaceutical company? I ask because you seem to be under the impression that pills are always better. I was proscribed anti-inflammatories for arthritis at the age of 33, the very same drugs that are causing heart attacks, strokes, and a delightful variety of stomach complaints. You seem to be suggesting that I should run the risk of life threatening ailments because (gasp) pot makes me high? My Dr. never mentioned the studies showing that certain foods should be avoided with arthritic conditions nor did she mention the various nutritional supplements that are providing relief to arthrits patients, she just threw a prescrition at me and said “come back if it makes you sick”.
I just dont have your faith in silver-bullet cures, and legal or not, marijuana is what enables me to get through a long day of pain and physical inabilities without the unpleasant side effects (death and such) of anti-inflammatories.
heatherh- what studies of foods, in what refereed journals, what nutritional supplements, in double blinded, placebo controlled trials? Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories are not perfect, but they have actual data that quantitate what percent of patients have improved pain control, and what percent have side effects, and one can weigh the risks and benefits. You have anecdotes, and yes, something that makes you “feel” better, with its own long term side effects, and no silver-bullet cure, as well. Big Pharma is not without sin, nor is anyone selling an unproven safe or efficacious “natural” substance.
The funniest part of all this is that through my 46 years of life, considering all the people I’ve known that smoked pot, not one has ever mentioned that it numbs the pain.
Tom, you are absolutely correct, it shows that you’re an authority on the subject. I admire someone that takes the pride you have and with your projecton of information. oSo when i actually do sit down to read material, I appreciate well written and organized blogs like this one. I have it bookmarked and will be back. Thanks.