Pubdate: Mon, 23 Mar 2015
Source: Daily Review (Towanda, PA)
Copyright: 2015 The Daily Review
Contact:  http://www.thedailyreview.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1015
Authors: Eric Hrin, Max Bennett and James Loewenstein, Staff Writers
Series: Looking at marijuana legalization in Pa.

PA. REPS DISCUSS LEGALIZATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Editor's Note: This is part one of a three-part series by The Daily 
Review looking at the legalization of marijuana in Pennsylvania.

One is a Republican state senator from Lycoming County; one is the 
most visible Democrat in the state.

But on the issue of legalization of medical marijuana, these two 
individuals - Sen. Gene Yaw and Gov. Tom Wolf - are seeing eye to eye.

Yaw (R-23) said he was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 1182, which would 
allow patients, if they have a recommendation from their doctor, to 
purchase and use medical marijuana from centers licensed by a 
to-be-created State Board of Medical Cannabis Licensing. The bill was 
passed by the Senate last year, but it was not voted on in the House 
by the end of the legislative session. The bill has been reintroduced 
this year as Senate Bill 3.

Wolf supports the legalization of medical marijuana, said Jeff 
Sheridan, Wolf 's press secretary. Wolf supports "the vision" of 
legalizing medical marijuana that is contained in Senate Bill 3, Sheridan said.

A look at Senate Bill 3

The form of medical marijuana allowed by Senate Bill 3 would be 
useful, especially for children with seizures, Yaw said.

"It is also for some cancer patients," he added. "There are a 
multitude of reasons" why it would be used, he said.

Yaw noted that the type of medical marijuana that Senate Bill 3 
allows is a pill, which would be manufactured using an oil that is 
extracted from the marijuana plant.

The amount of THC (the psychoactive component of marijuana) in the 
pills would be either very low or nonexistent, so "you can't get a 
high" from taking the pills, he said.

Senate Bill 3 does not per mit the smoking of marijuana, nor does it 
allow recreational use of marijuana, he said.

Yaw said he thought that, under Senate Bill 3, the use of medical 
marijuana, and the way it is processed, would be "strictly controlled."

Senate Bill 3 "has nothing to do with the marijuana that is sold in a 
criminal way. It is not smoked. It just happens to be an extract out 
of the plant," he said.

"This (the pills) is one more thing that we can help people with who 
are suffering from some kind of disease, so why not use it?" the 
senator asked rhetorically.

"If anybody thinks that people are going to take (the pills) and get 
high off it - that's not going to happen," Yaw said.

Sen. Mike Folmer, who introduced Senate Bill 1182, is a cancer 
survivor, so he has "first-hand knowledge of what people go through" 
when they have the disease, Yaw said.

Sheridan, meanwhile, noted that amendments could be made to Senate 
Bill 3. However, if Senate Bill 3 is passed by the Legislature and is 
still in line with the governor's beliefs, Wolf would sign it, Sheridan said.

Wolf "believes we should not deny doctors treatment methods that have 
been proven to succeed by science," Sheridan added.

In his second week in office, Gov. Wolf "invited families and 
advocates of medical marijuana to meet with him" in his reception 
room, and Folmer and Sen. Daylin Leach, who was also a key sponsor of 
Senate Bill 1182, were at the reception, Sheridan said.

Another medical marijuana bill

House Bill 193, which is in the House Health Committee, is similar to 
Senate Bill 3; however, it's different regarding the types of 
conditions that could be treated with medical marijuana, according to 
Kathy Seidl, research analyst, House Democratic State Government Committee.

She said the condition parameters are more expansive. A doctor would 
write a prescription for medical marijuana, after an examination, and 
the prescription would be based on the patient's needs. A medical 
cannabis access card would be needed.

She said Rep. Mark B. Cohen (D-Phila.) is the primary sponsor.

For every year since 2009, Cohen has been introducing bills to 
provide for the use of medical marijuana, she said.

His bill also includes vaporization as a delivery method, which was 
excluded in Senate Bill 3, she noted.

A news release on the website of Cohen and the Pennsylvania House 
provides the following information about the bill. It reads:

"Cohen said this legislative effort has focused on a strain of 
cannabis very high in cannabidiols - compounds with anti 
- -inflammatory and antioxidant properties, which are very low in 
tetrahydrocannabinols, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient in 
cannabis. He added this type of marijuana would be most helpful to 
children suffering from debilitating seizure disorders, veterans with 
post-traumatic stress disorder, and people suffering from diabetes, 
AIDS/ HIV, and eating disorders."

It continues, "Under the bill, medical marijuana wo ul d be dispensed 
through licensed distributors and available to those who have been 
certified by their physicians to benefit from the drug. The bill also 
would establish a State Board of Medical Cannabis Licensing and 
regulate the growing, processing and dispensing of medical cannabis."

In the news release, Cohen said, "Another aspect of the bill is the 
proposed civil penalties and revocation of licenses for violations of 
the act, and prohibition of g rowing marijuana for personal 
consumption. The protection of adults - parents or guardians - in 
possession of medical marijuana on behalf of their minor children wo 
uld also be ensured."

An opposite viewpoint

State Rep. Matt Baker (R-Tioga/Bradford/Potter), chair man of the 
state House Health Committee, doesn't think that marijuana should be 
legalized for medical use - or recreational use, for that matter.

"I am not in favor of legalizing cannabis given the totality of 
research, medical opinions and lack of FDA approval as well as the 
fact cannabis is still viewed by federal law and the conventional 
science community as having no medical value at this point in time 
notwithstanding the rush by some states to legalize cannabis for 
which we are now hearing of many abuses, accidents and deaths," he 
stated in an emailed response.

"If at some point in time the scientific community and medical 
experts can agree and if the FDA approves a derivative of cannabis 
that is not harmful nor habit forming and is specific to safely and 
effectively treating seizures, I may reconsider my position, but for 
now the preponderance of evidence does not conclusively prove, 
establish or suggest that cannabis improves overall health or is 
efficacious in treating seizures, not with standing so me anecdotal 
evidence that it may reduce seizures, while at the same time could 
potentially be damaging brain development and function as well as 
cause harm to many other anatomical systems."

Baker said his "heart goes out to all those suffering from these 
terrible seizures and the families who love and support their children."

However, he said he has "a file, about 8-10 inches thick, of research 
on this issue, and I have talked with many doctors and even two 
pediatric neurologists that run seizure clinics and most are not in 
favor of treating children with a drug that could have adverse and 
harmful consequences on the development of children's brain, can 
impact and be potentially harmful to many systems of the body, has 
not been proven with longitudinal double blind studies to benefit 
children (it is illegal to conduct trials on children), but rather 
harm children in the long run."

"The two experts I personally talked with said a few of their 
patients went to Colorado to try cannabis in an attempt to alleviate 
seizures for their children, but there was no demonstrative change or 
improvement, and what concerned them was the potential unknown harm 
it could actually cause them, however well intentioned," he said.

Baker pointed out that marijuana is "currently classified as a 
Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which 
defines marijuana as having a high potential for abuse, lacking an 
accepted medical use and lacking safety for use under medical supervision."

"As such, the federal government does not allow or permit the use of 
medical marijuana at this time," he stated.

Baker noted that, according to the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy, under the Executive Office of the President, the Obama 
Administration "steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and 
other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and 
use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to 
all Americans, particularly young people."

Baker also made the following points:

- - He said there have been no well-controlled clinical trials looking 
at cannabis oil for treatment of seizures.

- - He said The Epilepsy Foundation has concluded there is insufficient 
information to provide a definitive answer to the question of whether 
marijuana, in any form, can be recommended either for children or 
adults with epilepsy.

- - At this time, he said, given the totality of research, medical 
opinions and lack of FDA approval as well as the fact cannabis is 
still viewed by federal law and the conventional science community as 
having no medical value (at this point in time), some concern is evident.

"While there are some states which legalized cannabis, stories of 
abuses, accidents and deaths are coming out," he said. "If at some 
point in time the scientific community and medical experts can agree 
and if the FDA approves a derivative of cannabis that is not har mful 
or habit forming and is specific to safely and effectively treating 
seizures, some positions may be reconsidered. But for now the 
preponderance of evidence does not conclusively prove that cannabis 
improves overall health or is efficacious in treating seizures. At 
the same time, this drug has the known potential to damage brain 
development and function as well as cause harm to many other 
anatomical systems."

Baker provided an email with links to what he said are more than 150 
medical and scientific studies "that conclude pot is harmful to 
nearly every body system and can cause much harm."

As for the recreational use of marijuana, Baker has concerns about it 
being a "gateway drug."

He said "marijuana, in my opinion, has been linked to many addictive 
drugs as a gateway drug, can cause serious mental and physical harm, 
cancer, brain damage, addiction, and has yet to be proven in 
longitudinal double blind studies to be either safe or effective 
other than anecdotal evidence."

Baker provided a column that he wrote in which he elaborated on his concerns.

In the column, he wrote, "Although some people may think this is an 
overused term, multiple studies link early use of marijuana to later 
use of other illicit drugs. This is just one more reason why we need 
to keep marijuana out of the hands of our young people."

"In addition, drugged driving is becoming a rising concern in areas 
of the country where marijuana use is more widely accepted," Baker 
wrote. "According to a study from Columbia University published in 
the American Journal of Epidemiology, 'As medical marijuana sales 
expanded into 20 states, legal weed was detected in the bodies of 
dead drivers three times more often during 2010 when compared to 
those who died behind the wheel in 1999.' The study, which included 
research from six states, found cannabinol, a remnant of marijuana, 
in 12.2 percent of deceased drivers during 2010, up from 4.2 percent in 1999."

As a final comment, Baker added, "I continue to be amazed by how most 
good citizens are concerned with the proliferation of drugs and drug 
addiction, the fact that up to 80 percent of criminals in our jails 
and prison have a connection to drugs or drug abuse and our public 
health leaders say drug addiction is our number one public health 
threat in Pa., and yet while our society wants to see this drug 
threat reduced at the same time a segment of our society wants to see 
a new drug (marijuana) approved for public consumption that has not 
been proven to be either safe or effective, but rather harmful and addictive."

Time for tests and trials

Rep. Tina Pickett, who represents the 110th legislative district, 
said it's time to begin conducting testing and trials for medical marijuana.

"We need some good medical tests on this," she said. "We don't let 
any medical drug on the market without good clinical testing."

Pickett raised concerns over side effects and mixing marijuana with 
other prescribed drugs.

"What are the long-term effects?" she asked. "We really don't know at 
this point."

Pickett said she's waiting for medical experts to provide conclusive 
results from trials.

"For the last two months I've been saying, 'Yeah, but where are the 
medical guys on this,'" she said. "We, as legislators, don't have 
that kind of medical knowledge to say, 'boom, it's legal.'"

Legislators need to step back and defer to medical professionals on 
this issue, she said.

"If we assume it has medical uses," she said, "what's the ideal 
combination of THC and the oil in it for certain conditions and diseases?"

Pickett also said determining someone's level of intoxication from 
marijuana is another hurdle for legalizing the drug.

"To my knowledge we don't have a good understanding of intoxication 
levels for marijuana," she said.

Where police can observe a drunk driver handling their car 
erratically, Pickett said it's hard for police to tell who is under 
the influence of marijuana.

As for recreational marijuana, Pickett said at this point she would 
be against legalizing the drug.

"I don't think we have a clear understanding of what leads to what," she said.

March 30, look for part two in The Daily Review's series, when 
doctors will weigh in on the legalization of medical marijuana in Pennsylvania.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom