Senate advances medical marijuana bill

Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, voted 48-18 to approve the bill, which received bipartisan support in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The bill differs from a state House of Representatives proposal to make medical marijuana available through a research study.

“I’ve supported the idea for a long time,” Bakk told The Journal Thursday, adding he voted for a similar bill in 2009, which was eventually veto by former Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Bakk said this session he’s had the opportunity to interact with many people who would benefit from using the drug for medical reasons.

“I met with a lot of parents who brought their children in who are suffering from a seizure disorder,” he said.

He noted one child in particular he met from Hibbing was born healthy, but developed seizures around the age of 2.

“She has somewhere around 18 seizures per day,” Bakk said. “Her parents are just devastated.”

He continued the family has tried marijuana, which has reduced the toddler’s seizures to about two per day.

“Imagine if you’re a parent,” he said. “They just want to relieve suffering their kids are having...I believe there is a therapeutic benefit to using the drug as a medication.”

Bakk said the Senate’s bill is tightly regulated and doesn’t support any kind of recreational use.

“You can’t smoke it,” he said. “Minnesota would be the only state not allowed to smoke it for medial purposes.”

There is hope, Bakk said, Gov. Mark Dayton may sign a bill. Dayton voiced his opposition to legalizing medical marijuana. But, in the same note, Bakk said there is still a long road ahead and time is running out to this session.

“I had a personal meeting with the governor on Tuesday afternoon,” Bakk explained. “I think there’s a chance we can get him to sign something.”

First, however, the House, which is focusing on a similar bill, but with much different language, needs to come on board.

“I’m hopeful we can reach an agreement with the House that we can get the governor to sign,” Bakk said.

One of the differences between the bills is how many treatment centers would grow, harvest, process and dispense marijuana beginning July 1, 2015. The Senate bill outlines 55 locations while the House bill only lists one.

“The governor thinks 55 is too many, I think one is not enough,” Bakk said. “The authors of each bill have been directed to hopefully work out a compromise that would hopefully happen as soon as this weekend.”

Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, said he has received “numerous emails” from Koochiching County residents asking him not to support such a bill.

“I am totally against any recreational use and against decriminalizing, home-grown marijuana,” he said in a statement to The Journal.

The representative referred to the the bills introduced as “not remotely acceptable.”

“The bills in the House and Senate that are traveling as amended are getting very close to the problem of providing relief to those who need it,” he said. “I hope that constituents are patient as the bill advances knowing that I would never vote for a bill that would cause harm to a family, kids, or promote illegal activity. For that reason, I am unwilling to commit at this moment.”

State law enforcement groups have said legalizing marijuana, even for medical reasons, would lead to wider distribution of the drug. In addition, law enforcement officials say they fear it would lead to more impaired driving incidents and wind up in the hands of children.

Locally, however, Koochiching County Sheriff Brian Jespersen said while he is not in favor of recreational marijuana use, he sees no problem in using the drug for medical reasons.

“If it helps get people through cancer, or other medical needs... I have no problem at all,” he said. “It’s like any other drug we give to help relieve pain. If this stuff actually works, it’s a good thing.”

Jespersen stressed the need to have the drug controlled by physician prescription.

“I don’t want to see it where people can just pick it up at Kmart,” he said. “I look at prescription drugs and how they are abused. People just need to use common sense, and I think most people will.”

According to Kelly Millerbernd, Rainy Lake Medical Center marketing and foundation coordinator, physicians at the hospital campus declined to comment on the bills.

Medical staff at the Rural Health Clinic said because they feel they aren’t current on the situation, they also declined comment to the newspaper.

Calls from RLMC clinic campus were not returned in time for this story.

What do readers think?

The vote received both support and opposition from The Journal’s Facebook followers Wednesday.

“Although it’s a controversial issue, there are many people who can benefit from it for legitimate medical reasons,” wrote Katherine Olson about legalizing medical marijuana. “I’m an oncology nurse and can see this being a very positive thing for many of my patients.”

Ron Ohotto Jr. echoed Olson’s comments in his post.

“My wife had to watch her very athletic and energetic 12-year-old suffer from the side effects of chemo,” he wrote. “He fought cancer for several years and was in constant pain until the day he passed away. I am against drugs, but if (marijuana) carries little side effects and can give some comfort to those suffering...why not?”

Still, others weren’t convinced.

“No need for it,” Brad Skaro wrote. “Before it’s legalized, (lawmakers) need to look at the mess it’s created in other states. Before you know it, every pothead in the state will say they need script for it.”

“I think Brad has a very valid point,” Brena Kelsch wrote. “It’s not a pain reliever. I guess I just don’t understand what it can help...I would like someone to tell me how it benefits sick people.”

Staff writers Laurel Beager and Spenser Bickett contributed to this report.