Medical marijuana bill clears a hurdle

HARTFORD -- Legislation to allow marijuana to be grown and used in Connecticut for medical purposes cleared its third hurdle on Tuesday, when the General Assembly's Public Health Committee approved it 19-6.

The next stop for the bill is the House of Representatives, as the May 9 adjournment date draws closer. The bill had previously been reviewed and approved in the legislative Judiciary Committee, then last week in the Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee.

Rep. Elizabeth B. Ritter, D-Waterford, co-chairwoman of the committee, said the bill has been rewritten from legislation that failed in recent years.

"There is extensive analysis following this, concerning the conditions and parameters placed around the obtaining, the ordering, the possessing, the administering and the monitoring of patients," Ritter said.

Rep. Dan Carter, R-Bethel, who voted for the bill, said, "We've all heard stories about folks who in some way have been able to benefit from it. It seems to me, from looking at the medical evidence of the last couple of years that there are definitely groups of people out who will benefit from it and it's usually because of tolerability of drugs available."

But other legislators expressed concerns. "Connecticut had absolutely no obligation at all to deal with marijuana," said Rep. John W. Hetherington, R-New Canaan, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who voted against the bill.

"The federal government has, in various ways, made it clear that marijuana is illegal from a federal jurisdictional standpoint," he said. "In that way we are defying federal law and that gives me great concern. Defying federal law by state law is really not something that has occurred very often, certainly not outside the Deep South."

Rep. David A. Scribner, R-Brookfield, who also voted against the bill, said, "I think it's of great concern that there remain doubts and concerns about the conflict of what this law would establish with federal law and I don't think that's something we should disregard or take lightly. It has less to do with evidence that's been produced about the assistance it might provide in certain circumstances for health purposes."

kdixon@ctpost.com; 860-549-4670; https://twitter.com/#!/KenDixonCT