6
6 The News-Press
May 8, 2014
Medical marijuana not approved for PTSD Two Democrats join Republicans in killing bill, 6-5, in committee By Vic Vela
vvela@coloradocommunitymedia.com A bill that would have allowed marijuana to be used as a treatment option for post-traumatic stress disorder failed in a House committee on April 28. House Bill 1364 would have added PTSD to a list of eight other conditions that qualify sufferers for medical marijuana treatment. Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont, a bill sponsor, argued that those with PTSD should be given the option to consult with doctors as to whether medical pot is a viable treatment option for their condition. That’s better practice than sufferers having to resort to figuring out their best pot
pathway through retail pot shop clerks, he said. “Should it be the bud-tenders on Colfax or the doctors at Kaiser?” Singer asked the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. Colorado voters, through the 2000 passage of Amendment 20, approved eight conditions that qualify for medical pot treatment, including cancer, glaucoma and AIDS. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has the ability to add other conditions to that list, but it has not done so since Amendment 20 passed. Several witnesses testified that marijuana has helped alleviate their PTSD symptoms, including military veterans who served in conflicts and wars, ranging from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. “Cannabis made it to where I don’t have to take any of these prescription drugs,” testified Sean Azzariti, an Iraq War veteran. “It saved my life.” Singer said that it should be up to doc-
tors to decide what is best for their patients and cited high suicide rates among veterans as reason enough to keep all treatment options open. “I don’t think that every veteran who commits suicide… could have used medical marijuana and it would have saved their life. I don’t believe that for a second,” Singer said. “But I do believe that some of them might have been able to use this as a tool in their toolbox to have that conversation with their doctor to make the right decisions for them.” Key opposition testimony came from Dr. Larry Wolk, CDPHE’s chief medical officer. Wolk said that CDPHE already has a process in place that allows the department to add health conditions to the medical marijuana list. Wolk said the department has considered the addition of PTSD to the list twice before and rejected it both times. Wolk also said that there isn’t enough research to show that marijuana is an effective treatment for PTSD. Some committee members had legal
concerns over the bill, with some wondering whether the legislation would be akin to lawmakers taking it upon themselves to changing Amendment 20 language in the state Constitution. “I don’t always think the right decision for us to make is, `Well, let’s just let the courts decide,’” said Rep. Tim Dore, R-Elizabeth, who opposed the bill. Rep. Kathleen Conti, R-Littleton, said her opposition to the bill was personal. She said that marijuana use on the part of her child led to addictions to more dangerous drugs. “My personal life story is one that has shown marijuana to absolutely be a gateway drug and I watched it become a gateway drug from marijuana to Oxycontin to heroin for someone I love with all of my heart,” Conti said. The bill died following a 6-5 vote. Two Democrats — Reps. Jeanne Labuda and Angela Williams, both of Denver — joined all four Republican committee members in voting against the bill.
Traffic cameras not going away Measure hits brick wall upon reaching House By Vic Vela
vvela@coloradocommunitymedia.com After a bill cruised through the Senate, the House last week put the brakes on the measure, which sought to ban red-light cameras and photo radar systems in Colorado. The legislation officially met its demise during a House Appropriations Committee hearing on April 30, but the bill’s sponsor, House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, had pretty much accepted its defeat before it even got there. Senate Bill 14 would have prohibited local governments from using photo-radar technology to capture drivers who speed or run red lights. It was gutted by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which passed a
stripped-down version of the bill on April 28. The gutted version only would have allowed for a state study of the technology’s public-safety effectiveness, something that Ferrandino didn’t think was necessary. “I think we have enough studies to show that it’s not effective,” Ferrandino told the Appropriations Committee. Ferrandino and other bill supporters argued that photo-radar technology is a cash cow used by local governments to rack up revenue, courtesy of lead-foot drivers. The House speaker also said the technology does little to prevent accidents. “They give a sense of public safety, but don’t actually increase public safety,” Ferrandino said. But several law-enforcement representatives testified otherwise during the committee process. Supporters of the technology asserted that the devices serve as a blessing for understaffed police agencies and that the presence of the cameras curbs bad habits on the part of drivers. “If you just look at the money side and ignore the public-safety side, to me the public-safety side triumphs,” said Rep. Jeanne Labuda, D-Denver. The bill’s gutted version called for an effectiveness
study that would have been undertaken by the Colorado Department of Transportation. But House Appropriations Committee member Max Tyler, D-Lakewood, wasn’t willing to fund the legislation at the possible expense of other CDOT projects. “I’m wondering what bridge is not going to be built, what road is not going to be protected,” Tyler said. “Where are they going to get the money for this, Mr. Speaker?” The bill’s last chance for survival would have allowed it to go to a vote in the full House, where it could have been amended to its original form. But the committee rejected that motion. Ferrandino knew there wasn’t much hope for the bill, acknowledging as much to reporters the day before the hearing. Having accepted defeat during the hearing, the House speaker — who is not accustomed to being on the losing end of a piece of legislation — drew laughter when he joked about his colleagues’ lack of support. “When did I become part of the minority?” quipped Ferrandino.
Oil-gas study measure dies Free Sales Training for Small Business Owners Learn how to: Grow your revenue, one customer at a time Help customers choose you Increase your average sale Help an irate customer Close the sale Tues, May 13 10am—12:00pm 2154 E Commons Ave, Suite 342, Centennial CO 80122 The South Metro Denver SBDC helps existing and new businesses grow and prosper through low-cost workshops and free consulting
To Register Visit www.SmallBusinessDenver.com
The South Metro Denver Small Business Development Center is partially funded by the U.S. Small Business Administration. The Support given by the U.S. Small Business Administration through such funding does not constitute an express or implied endorsement of any of the co-sponsors' or participants' opinions products or services. The Colorado SBDC is a partnership between the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, the U.S. Small Business Administration, Colorado's institutions of higher education, and local development organizations.
www.SmallBusinessDenver.com
(303) 795-0142
Bill would have required probe of health impacts By Vic Vela
vvela@coloradocommunitymedia.com A bill that would have created a study of the health impacts of oil and gas drilling on Front Range residents died in the state Senate Appropriations Committee, following a 5-2 vote. Democratic Sens. Pat Steadman of Denver and Mary Hodge of Brighton joined all Republican committee members in voting against the measure on April 29. “I think the people’s voices have been silenced,” said Rep. Joann Ginal, D-Fort Collins, a bill sponsor. House Bill 1297 would have required the state to conduct a three-year health impact study on residents living in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Larimer and Weld counties.
H YOUTTS I PERM
$
5
NT SIDE ONRE N R ENT O RESID
A FAMILY TRADITION
GOING STRONG IN
NEBRASKA
Share the hunting experience you enjoy with your kids— for less. All hunters 15 and under can get Nebraska deer and turkey permits for only $5. SPRING TURKEY
Archery and Shotgun Now Open Through May 31
DEER
Application Periods Start June 9
GET ALL THE DETAILS AT
OutdoorNebraska.org/5bucks
See You Out There
The study would have included surveying residents living in those areas and the possible review of medical records. The effort was a response to concerns over the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — the practice of mixing of water, sand and chemicals and blasting the mixture deep into the ground to crack porous rock and free up oil and gas. The study would have focused on counties that include communities that have sought to either ban or limit the practice of fracking over the last few years. Ginal and other bill supporters said a study would provide both a health and educational benefit for Coloradans who want to know more about the impacts of the controversial oil and gas industry money-maker and job creator. However, the bill received only a single Republican vote in the House. Some legislators and oil and gas industry leaders opposed the effort for reasons that included concerns that the study would be slanted toward the viewpoint of fracking opponents. Money was also an issue. Originally, the bill sought only to include Adams, Boulder, Larimer and Weld counties as part of the study. But a House committee added Arapahoe County and the City and County of Broomfield to that list. The additions increased the study’s cost to about $700,000 — something that concerned Ginal before it even got to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senate President Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, said she did not know if it was cost that led to the bill’s defeat. Carroll did say that she supported the bill and that “it’s a basic responsibility (of the state)” to look out for the health of its residents. “I think sooner or later it behooves all of us to get a credible and independent study,” Carroll said. “And, from the oil and gas perspective, if (fracking) is as safe as they say, then they should have credible independent studies that confirm that.” Ginal said she intends to revive the effort next year.