Beaverhead County persists in prosecuting medicinal marijuana user

Good topic for AG candidates (0.00 / 0)

Seems like this issue is a good topic to ask our Attorney General candidates.  We can all weigh in on the obvious dysfunction of the legal system -- and, at least in this case, the apparent disregard for the law passed by the people of Montana -- but what I'd like to hear is where Mike Wheat, John Parker, and Steve Bullock are on this.  For sure I won't be voting for the Republican candidates for AG, and it wouldn't hurt to hear what they have to say either.  But the Demo primary race for AG has three candidates and what position they take on issues such as Montana's medical marijuana law, which garnered more votes than any statewide or presidential candidate, would be very helpful in deciding to who to vote for come June.  

---

by: ochenski @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 21:39:32 PM UTC

medical marijuana (0.00 / 0)

I am Mike Wheat.  I am a candidate for Attorney General and appreciate the opportunity to comment on Montana's medical marijuana law.

The medical marijuana act is very explicit that a qualifying patient may use and possess marijuana, and about how to qualify and become registered as a medical marijuana patient.   The act is equally clear that "a qualifying patient . . . may not possess more than six marijuana plants and 1 ounce of usable marijuana."

The State's law enforcement officials, including the Attorney General and county attorneys, are duty bound to not only defend the medical marijuana act against all challenges and those who follow the requirements of the act, but also pursue those who would violate the act. Violators of the act do a disservice to those who comply with the act and rely on the medicinal benefits of the marijuana.  Likewise, unfounded  enforcement is a disservice.

According to the newspaper the folks in Dillon had 96 plants in their possession, so there is an apparent violation of the act. However, I must confess that I know very little about the facts of the case, so I think we ought to let the Judge make his court rulings and let the Jury make its decision based on the evidence.  Once that process is concluded we will be in a better position to decide if law enforcement was being heavy handed or these folks were violating the act.

On another note, I have been asked what I would do as Attorney General if the Federal Government attempted to  prosecute a "qualified medical marijuana patient" for a federal drug violation.  I said I would defend our State law in any and every way possible.  That's the Attorney General's job.

---

by: MWheat @ Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 22:53:07 PM UTC

Thank you, Mr. Wheat. (0.00 / 0)

That is why I'm voting for you.

---

by: Mathello @ Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 00:41:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mike Wheat's interpretation -- clarification & augmentation (0.00 / 0)

You are correct, Mike, that Montana's Medical Marijuana Act provides maximum protection -- no arrest, no prosecution -- only for patients and caregivers who are registered with the state health department AND who possess no more than six plants and one ounce (per patient in the case of a caregiver).

However, the law also provides an affirmative defense for any patient who is either unregistered and/or who possesses more than the six plant/one ounce limit.  This provision -- allowing whatever amount is reasonably necessary to assure a patient's steady supply for his/her medical needs -- has never yet been tested in court; so far, in the cases that would have dealt with this defense, charges were dropped before any trial.

It is very important, however, for law enforcement agencies to appreciate that for a great many patients it is absolutely necessary to possess more than six plants and one ounce at times, if not always.  Consider, for example, that the federal government itself grows and delivers EIGHT OUNCES every month to the patients in the federal program.  It is also important to recognize that one cannot believe what one reads in the media, attributed to law enforcement officials on this issue.  In my experience, some have a habit of counting dead plants as if they were alive; of considering a fresh cutting with as yet no roots as if it were a fully matured, female, flowering plant... etc.

For reasons I won't take time to outline at the moment, with tax dollars footing the entire bill, everything about the Scott & Summer Day case in Dillon is an immoral travesty -- and the upcoming trial will put this fact on display.  This will be great for public and law enforcement education, but a horrible trauma for Mr. & Mrs. Day.

Incidentally, our remarkable "drug war" being what it is -- a war meant to be waged but never "won," a war on people and not at all on drugs -- if Mr. Day were to be convicted of any one of the felonies he is charged with, he would lose permanently his eligibility for Medicaid.  With a monthly enzyme treatment that costs $40,000 necessary for his very survival, a conviction will be a functional death sentence.  This would not be the case had he committed armed robbery or even murder, amazingly enough.

I helped write our medical marijuana law, and founded Patients & Families United, a support group for Montana marijuana patients regardless of their condition and pain patients, whether they use marijuana or not.  I add this fact only to suggest that I know what I'm talking about.

Thanks for your interest, Mike.  Anyone interested in learning more might find useful information at our group's website, www.mtpfu.org.

-Tom Daubert

---

by: Daubert @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 20:00:51 PM UTC