Talking Pot: Exploring SB 5073

Yesterday, the House passed SB 5073, a bill designed to protect patients and providers of medical marijuana. A similar version of the bill was already passed once by the Senate, but now must return to be approved again.

Local news outlets are reporting on a variety of concerns by both sides regarding this controversial overhaul, so we decided to throw our hat into the mix and try to clear the air, so to speak.

We do not recommending reading the digest of the bill.

This is the actual digest. All of it.

But you can read the entire actual bill and its many changes. Which we did.

The bill seeks to establish a regulatory system for dispensaries and growers, allowing them to operate within the confines of the law, allowing for taxation of products and services, which could net, the Times reports, "$920,000 in state and local revenues in 2012, and $6 million by 2017."

But it is a large and cumbersome piece of text. It's been amended many times, and it's likely that many lawmakers have not been able to read every change made to it. Seattle Weekly's Nina Shapiro sharply points out a last minute change requiring patients who want protection from arrest to a Department of Health-run registery, which would still not to protect them from searches. The version of the bill which passed, then, may not do all it aspires to.

SB 5073 also features some interesting re-wording, including the changing of "marijuana" to "cannabis," and "cannabis products," which would include seeds, resin, and other extractions of the plant, and products containing:

...A measurable THC concentration greater than three-tenths of one percent, and are intended for human consumption or application, including, but not limited to, edible products, tinctures, and lotions.

By limiting the potency of products, such as eatables and other methods of ingestion, this bill would serve to ensure that the goods sold through dispensaries would be, unlike the knock-you-on-your-ass brownies your college roommate made, at an adequate dose that would aid patients with pain, without leaving them fried. However, the matter of determining an "adequate dose" is still suspect--but we'll get to that.

Critics of the bill claimed that the legislation would make marijuana more available to children, despite there being clear language that the cannabis would be available only to designated patients aged 18 or older. And, unlike street dealers, medical providers who are under penalty of law (which the bill also outlines) are much, much more likely to ask for ID. There is also language in the bill which mandates that a dispensary may not be within 500 feet of a school.

Another fear is that this bill will lead toward complete legalization of marijuana (or cannabis). And while legislation that is this widely discussed and presents an overall favorable view of medical cannabis and may help shift public opinion, law makers are careful to outline the fact that "this act is not intended to amend or supersede Washington state law prohibiting the acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, or use of cannabis for nonmedical purposes."

The PI points out a few pieces of the bill that make those in the pro-medical camp a little nervous:

Some proponents worry that a clause that now says "providers" can't provide the drug to more than one patient every 15 days would put most medical marijuana dispensaries out of business. Also, S.B.5073 says that qualifying patients or designated providers could possess no more than 15 pot plants and no more than 24 ounces of "usable cannabis."

These are some of the stickier piece of the overall puzzle. First, that the number of patients far outweighs the number of providers, especially as providers become nervous about raids and other legal backlash. Second, that so little research has been done about the actual numbers of patients, providers, and necessary dosing of the drug, that much of the logistical information is based on speculation. Current law allows one individual to posses up to a "60-day supply," which is, according to the state, up to 24 ounces. Which is a nearly inhuman amount of cannabis to consume in 60 days.

However, it seems to be something of a chicken/egg situation. Without proper legislature to protect patients and providers, gathering accurate numbers is difficult; without accurate numbers, legislation that works effectively also seems unattainable. Additionally, convincing credited parties to conduct audits around something that's still viewed as "criminal" (at least by lawmakers) is no easy task. We have a feeling that these lessons will come the hard way--through trial and error.

Senate lawmakers will undoubtedly make more changes to SB 5073 when it comes before them. Though from the look of this bill, we're still a little hazy on what more they can do:

The revised bill. Arrows, mine.