Pubdate: Tue, 27 Feb 2007
Source: Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA)
Copyright: 2007 The Spokesman-Review
Contact:  http://www.spokesmanreview.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/417
Author: Kevin Graman
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

MAN DISPUTES LAW, MARIJUANA CONVICTION

He Claims He's Protected Under Initiative 6'

A 64-year-old Whitman County man with glaucoma is challenging not 
only his conviction for growing marijuana, but the validity of the 
Washington state law that has rendered him a felon.

Attorneys for Pullman motel owner Loren R. Hanson, whose case is 
pending in Washington state Court of Appeals for District 3, contends 
the law under which he was convicted "has been effectively repealed" 
by the 1998 medical marijuana initiative.

Hanson's attorneys also contend their client was denied a medical 
marijuana defense in the case that led to his conviction, and a 
penalty of $1,700 and 40 hours of community service.

Nine years after the passage of Initiative 692, many Washington 
patients for whom it is believed marijuana would be a help are not 
seeking or getting that help because of confusion over a state law 
the federal government continues to oppose.

"It sure would be nice if the sick patients could get their 
medication," said Hanson, who is allergic to other medications that 
relieve eye pressure, which causes blindness.

"I can't take any of the medications on the market," he said.

In summer 2004, after discussions with his doctor, Hanson began 
growing his own marijuana, which he took externally, allowing the 
smoke to waft around his face.

"The smoke just getting in my eyes relieves pressure and keeps me 
from losing eyesight," he said. Glaucoma is one of the few conditions 
specified in the medical marijuana law.

On Aug. 24, 2004, the Quad Cities Drug Task Force raided his 
business, the Manor Lodge Motel, while Hanson was away. Detectives 
found 34 mature plants, which they seized along with grow lights and 
other items used for cultivation.

The next day, Hanson obtained written authorization for medical 
marijuana from his doctor -- who, coincidentally, also was the doctor 
of Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier, who would hear 
Hanson's case.

Hanson then turned himself in to the Whitman County Sheriff's Office. 
Despite his doctor's letter, Hanson was charged with manufacturing 
marijuana, a felony.

Hanson's Spokane attorney, Frank Cikutovich, moved to have the case 
dismissed in November 2005, saying the state's medical marijuana law 
effectively repealed the drug law under which he was charged.

For marijuana to be an illegal Schedule I substance, Cikutovich 
argued, it cannot have a medical use. Yet by initiative, the people 
of Washington accepted that it does.

Whitman County Deputy Prosecutor Byron Bedirian was unavailable for 
comment Monday, but his arguments are spelled out in a brief filed 
with the appeals court.

Bedirian argued that the medical marijuana act states that it is not 
intended to supersede existing law.

In addition, Bedirian said, marijuana is controlled under Schedule I 
of the federal Controlled Substance Act.

Cikutovich said that should make no difference.

"Our argument is the state can determine what the schedule is, and by 
enacting medical marijuana, they're changing it," Cikutovich said. 
"It should not be considered a Schedule I drug."

Also at the November hearing, Frazier denied admission of Hanson's 
after-the-fact marijuana prescription from his doctor, effectively 
denying him a medical marijuana defense.

"He wouldn't allow us to present our defense," Cikutovich said of the judge.

Bedirian wrote that it wasn't the medical marijuana defense that was 
thrown out, but the evidence, "which had no bearing on the 
defendant's status at the time of the search warrant."

The defense contends that the medical marijuana law was intended to 
be a "compassionate law" interpreted leniently for the benefit of the patient.

Cikutovich's law partner, Patrick Stiley, wrote in an appeals court 
brief that the court "seemed to be laboring under the impression" 
that the law requires written documentation to be posted where the 
marijuana is growing.

"There was no discussion of the potential value" of Hanson's medical 
records, which show he is a "qualifying patient."

Bedirian wrote that when a criminal statute is clear, a "literal and 
strict interpretation must be given."

But Cikutovich contends there is nothing clear about the medical 
marijuana statute. In fact, he said, it is unclear on many different 
levels from "valid documentation" of a patient's right to use 
marijuana to what constitutes a legal 60-day supply of plants that 
are still growing.

"The law was intended to help people" like Hanson, not make him a 
felon, Cikutovich said.

Hanson's case was heard last week in Spokane by a panel of the State 
Appeals Court. Its decision is pending.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman