Remarks regarding Medical Cannabis

April 29, 2011

ESSB 5073 Partial Veto
Governor Gregoire
Olympia, Washington
Remarks as prepared

Good afternoon.

Before we take action on today�s bills, I wanted to take a few minutes to address Senate Bill 5073 and the actions I will take on it today.

I understand full well this is an emotional issue�for many it is a matter of finding a way to tolerate painful and devastating illnesses. For others it is a hopeful sign that legalization could be a step closer.

I understand all that. But I�d like to address the facts and the myths surrounding medical marijuana in our state and my concerns with some of the language in the bill. I�ve heard from people on all sides of the issue. Some have asked for a full veto, others have said to veto nothing. It is not that simple for me as I look at it.

First and foremost, I want to be clear�I support allowing the use of medical marijuana; it is a compassionate choice and is an appropriate choice for Washingtonians who are suffering through devastating medical conditions and have found no other remedy for their pain or debilitating conditions.

I had a legal secretary myself who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She wanted to keep working; she did not want to stay home in those final months of her life. She was in excruciating pain; her doctor suggested she use marijuana to address the pain. She did, and she lived out her life working, enjoying those last days.

So I�m acutely aware of how important this is to medical patients.

In 1998 voters approved an initiative to remove the fear of state criminal prosecution for patients who use medical marijuana.

My action today takes nothing away from that voter passed initiative�in fact it will help strengthen some patient protections. Some of the inaccuracies out there indicate otherwise and are creating unneeded fear and confusion for some qualified medical marijuana patients.

I support that initiative and in 2007 I signed legislation giving designated providers the same protections that primary caregivers have under state law. I also expanded the list of illnesses that medical marijuana can be used for from cancer, HIV, MS, epilepsy, and seizures to also include: Crohn�s disease, Hepatitis C, anorexia, and other conditions approved by the state medical quality assurance commission.

Last year I signed a bill adding nurse practitioners, naturopaths, physician assistants and osteopathic physician assistants to the list of health care providers who can recommend medical marijuana.

These efforts have been despite the fact that medical use of marijuana is still a federal crime. We have provided what is within our authority�assurance to patients and health care professionals that the state recognizes the medical benefits of marijuana and they will not be prosecuted in state courts.

However, possession and use of marijuana�medical or otherwise�can still be prosecuted in federal courts. It wasn�t until two years ago that in the Ogden memo, by the US Department of Justice, they said that they would not use limited resources to focus on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana in compliance with state law.

Yet that same memo, by the Justice Department pointed out that they maintain the authority to do so.

The legislation brought forth this year by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles is an attempt to further clarify the extreme complexity around the use and availability of medical marijuana and to give patients and providers appropriate protections under state law.

I want to thank Senator Kohl-Welles for her leadership on this issue and want to make clear that I stand with her in support of her intent to resolve unsettled issues.

However, as I have told her and the people I have met with on this issue, I cannot approve the bill in full. My foremost concern is that a number of provisions could put state employees at risk of serious personal consequences.
I shared my concerns with Senator Kohl-Welles and Rep. Cody in the House as they arose and our staffs worked together on rewrites of the legislation to address this central concern.

But the legislative process ran out of time and the bill that was passed by the legislature was the original bill that did not address my concerns. I have been and remain willing to fashion a bill that promotes better access for patients without putting state employees at legal risk from federal enforcement.

And I remain open, and would very much like to work with the legislature to establish a confidential registry of medical marijuana patients to prevent unfounded searches and arrests of these individuals under state enforcement.

Unfortunately, the registry provisions of the bill are intertwined with other provisions that I could not approve, so further work is absolutely necessary.

But several portions of the bill will stand:

1) I have kept sections of the bill that preserve Initiative 692�s affirmative defense from state prosecution for patients and those who assist them with the medical use of marijuana.

2) I have kept sections of the bill that provide additional state law protection from civil and criminal penalties.

� Parental rights may not be restricted solely due to the medical use of cannabis without showing impairment in the performance of parenting functions.

� Qualifying patients may not be denied an organ transplant solely because of medical marijuana use.

� Medical marijuana patients and their providers may grow cannabis for their own use, designate a provider to grow on their behalf, or participate in a collective garden with other qualifying patients without fear of state criminal prosecutions.

But the central concerns I raised still stand: we cannot presume to assure protections to one group of people�patients, providers and health care professionals�in a way that subjects another group, Department of Health and Department of Agriculture employees to federal arrest or criminal liability. That is not acceptable to me; it is not workable.

Some have predicted that the federal government would not arrest or prosecute state employees. Yet, the two United States Attorneys in Washington state were very direct in telling me that state employees performing activities under this bill would not be protected from civil or criminal liability under the federal law.

The bill�s sponsors asked me to get this position in writing and the letter that followed reiterated this position.

Specifically the US Attorneys said, �state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability.�

Their letter followed closely other signals that the landscape is changing out there. In February a US Attorney notified the City of Oakland that an ordinance passed there was contrary to federal laws and would open marijuana growers to prosecution, even if such activities are permitted under state law.

This week the US Attorney in Colorado reiterated this position. Just this morning the US Attorney in Rhode Island did the same. Similar letters are pending in a number of other states.

In early February the US Attorney for Eastern Washington notified landlords of dispensaries that they could face penalties if those dispensaries remained open.

The federal raids in Spokane yesterday are an indication that we need to take the US Attorney at his word. Let me clear up the confusion on the misperceptions I�ve heard following those raids.

Some have erroneously claimed that this bill would prevent the federal government from taking the action they did yesterday. That is not true. No state legislation could prevent that action. The US Attorney has reiterated that just this morning.

State law does not trump federal law.

Some have urged me to sign the bill anyway and assert states� rights. But I have to ask, is it a state right to violate federal law? Is it a state right to put our state employees at risk of federal arrest and prosecution?

The state does have the ability to decriminalize medical marijuana activities as a matter of state law.

That is the right asserted by Initiative 692.

As Governor, whose number one priority is the well being of our state, I can�t disregard federal law and our two US Attorneys on the chance that state employees may never be prosecuted. What do you say to them if they are? What would you tell that employee?

No responsible business or other employer would put their employees in the position of being subject to federal law enforcement actions, and I won�t either.

What I will do, and what I have done, is pledged to work on a solution that does not come at the expense of our employees but still protects our citizens.

I remain open to legislation to exempt qualifying patients and their providers from state criminal penalties when they join in nonprofit cooperative organizations that produce, process and distribute medical marijuana. I also remain open to legislation that establishes a secure and confidential registration system to provide patients with protections from arrest and seizure.

Ultimately the state is limited in its ability to address the issues. The real change � the real change � lies with and must be made at the federal level by the federal government.

Thank you.