COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
DRAFT COMMITTEE REPORT
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004
TO:
All Councilmembers
FROM:
Councilmember Tommy Wells, Chairperson
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DATE:
July 1, 2014
SUBJECT:
Report on Bill 20-766, “Medical Marijuana Expansion Amendment Act of 2014”
The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, to which Bill 20-766, “Medical
Marijuana Expansion Amendment Act of 2014” was referred, reports favorably thereon with
amendments, and recommends approval by the Council.
CONTENTS
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Background And Need ...............................................................1
Legislative Chronology..............................................................5
Position Of The Executive .........................................................6
Comments Of Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ..............7
Summary Of Testimony and Statements ...................................7
Fiscal Impact ............................................................................10
Section-By-Section Analysis ...................................................10
Committee Action ....................................................................10
Attachments .............................................................................11
I.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
INTRODUCTION
Bill 20-766, the “Medical Marijuana Expansion Amendment Act of 2014” was
introduced on April 8, 2014 by Chairman Mendelson and Councilmembers Alexander, Barry,
Bowser, Bonds, Catania, Evans, Cheh, Graham, Grosso, McDuffie, Orange, and Wells. It was
referred sequentially to the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety and the Committee on
Health. On June 12, 2014, the two committees held a joint hearing on Bill 20-766 and a related
bill, Bill 20-678, the “Medical Marijuana Plant Cultivation Amendment Act of 2014.”1 A
summary of the testimony provided at the hearing is found below in section V.
1
Bill 20-678 was referred sequentially to the Committee on Health and then to the Committee on the Judiciary and
Public Safety.
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 2 of 11
Bill 20-766 would redefine the term “qualifying medical condition” to allow physicians
to decide when medical marijuana should be recommended for patients. Bill 20-678 would
increase the number of plants that a cultivation center may grow from 95 to 500. As both bills
amend the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment initiative of 1998, the Committee
has incorporated Bill 20-678 into its print of Bill 20-766.
BACKGROUND
In 1998, voters in the District of Columbia passed Initiative 59, the “Legalization of
Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998.” Before the votes could be counted,
Congress blocked the implementation of the Initiative with a rider on a District appropriations
bill. Although 69 percent of District voters approved Initiative 59 – including a majority of
voters in all eight wards and every precinct – Congress continued to block implementation of the
law by attaching riders to the District’s appropriation bill every year.2 In December of 2009,
Congress finally passed a rider-free appropriation bill for the District, thereby allowing the
initiative to move forward.3
In 2010, the Council passed Bill 18-622, the “Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment Initiative Amendment Act of 2010,” (“2010 Act”) in order to “ensure that the
cultivation, distribution, possession, and use of medical marijuana is properly regulated.”4 Four
years later, the District’s medical marijuana program has only 452 registered patients.5 As a
result, the Committee on Health held a public roundtable on October 21, 2013 to discuss the
medical marijuana program. At that roundtable, witnesses testified as to the deficiencies of the
medical marijuana program and how the program could be improved. Two primary suggestions
emerged from that discussion: (1) Expanding the list of qualifying conditions and (2) Allowing
cultivation centers to possess more living marijuana plants.
Expanding the Qualifying Conditions
Initiative 59 specified which illnesses would qualify an individual to use medical
marijuana.6 As introduced, the 2010 Act charged the Department of Health (“DOH”) with
establishing a list of qualifying medical conditions and treatments based on available research.
After the hearing on the 2010 Act, the Committee on Health amended the introduced bill to
The Committee on Health’s Committee Report on Bill 18-622, p. 2, available at
http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20100729125059.pdf.
3
Id.
4
D.C. Law 18-210, effective July 27, 2010. The Committee on Health’s Committee Report on Bill 18-622, p. 1,
available at http://dcclims1.dccouncil.us/images/00001/20100729125059.pdf.
5
Medical Marijuana Program Update, District of Columbia Department of Health, June 19, 2014, available at
http://doh.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/doh/publication/attachments/MMPProgramUpdateMemo140619docx.pd
f.
6
“All seriously ill individuals may obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when a licensed physician has
found the use of marijuana to be medically necessary and has recommended the use of marijuana for the treatment
(or to mitigate the side effects of other treatments such as chemotherapy, including the use of AZT, protease
inhibitors, etc., radiotherapy, etc.) or diseases and conditions associated with HIV and AIDS, glaucoma, muscle
spasm, cancer and other serious or chronic illnesses for which the recommending physician reasonably believes that
marijuana has demonstrated utility.” See Section 2 of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative
of 2009, effective February 25, 2010 (D.C. Act 13-138).
2
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 3 of 11
provide a statutory list of conditions and treatments for which medical marijuana may be
recommended, while authorizing DOH to add conditions and treatments to that list if the
conditions meet specified requirements. The statutory list of qualifying conditions is limited to
HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, conditions characterized by severe and persistent muscle spasms, such as
multiple sclerosis, cancer, and any other condition, as determined by rulemaking, that is:
(1) Chronic or long-lasting;
(2) Debilitating or interferes with the basic functions of life; and
(3) A serious medical condition for which the use of medical marijuana is beneficial that
cannot be effectively treated by any ordinary medical or surgical measure or for which there is
scientific evidence that the use of medical marijuana is likely to be significantly less addictive
than the ordinary medical treatment for that condition.
The statutory list of qualifying medical treatments is limited to chemotherapy, the use of
azidothymidine or protease inhibitors, radiotherapy, or any other treatment, as determined by
rulemaking, whose side effects require treatment through the administration of medical
marijuana in the same manner as a qualifying medical condition.
While most states have a statutory list of qualifying conditions, the District’s list is
arguably the most restrictive in the country, as most jurisdictions include conditions such as
cachexia and chronic pain in their laws. Because most states allow a state agency to add
qualifying conditions, the restrictiveness of a state’s medical marijuana program depends in large
part on the willingness and ability of the state agency to add conditions. Since the passage of the
2010 Act, the Department of Health expanded the list of qualifying conditions pursuant to its
rulemaking authority. Specifically, the DOH added six new qualifying conditions:
decompensated cirrhosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), hospice patients
with less than 6 month to live, cachexia or wasting syndrome for individuals who are 18 years
old and older, Alzheimer’s disease,7 and seizure disorders.8
While the Committee is pleased that the DOH added these conditions, “we shouldn’t be
carving out exceptions like this for the families who complain the loudest and have particularly
heartbreaking stories.”9 At the public hearing on Bill 20-766, a number of witnesses testified as
to how the restrictive list of qualifying conditions, even with the addition of conditions by
rulemaking, was harmful to themselves or members of their family. For example, Kristen
Farthing testified that endometriosis – a condition that causes symptoms so severe that women
with the condition lose, on average, 10.8 hours a week due to pain and other symptoms – meets
every criterion in the District’s law for being a “qualifying condition,” but still has not been
added to the list.10 Similarly, Lauren Padgett testified that she uses cannabis to effectively
manage the chronic pain, nausea, and inflammation caused by lupus.11 While Ms. Padgett’s
doctor is comfortable with her using marijuana on her own to treat the pain, her doctor will not
Alzheimer’s Disease must be diagnosed by a neurologist, but can be recommended by any qualifying physician.
The diagnosis of seizure disorders must be made by a Board-certified pediatrician, but can be recommended by any
qualified physician.
9
Testimony of Ken Archer, p. 2 (“DC should do the right thing and remove all qualifying conditions, not just those
about which they hear the loudest complaints.”).
10
Testimony of Kristin Farthing, p. 1-2.
11
Id.
7
8
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 4 of 11
formally recommend it for her unless her condition – lupus – is approved by either the DOH or
the Council.12
Over the past few years, there has been a growing trend within the medical marijuana
movement to allow doctors, as opposed to politicians, decide when to recommend medical
marijuana. Currently, two states allow doctors to decide when medical marijuana is appropriate:
California and Massachusetts. California’ law provides that a physician may recommend medical
marijuana for “any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either: (A) Substantially
limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336); or (B) If not alleviated, may
cause serious harm to the patient’s safety or physical or mental health.”13 Similarly,
Massachusetts’s law provides that a physician may recommend medical marijuana for any “other
conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient’s physician.” 14 The idea of allowing
physicians to decide when to recommend medical marijuana is supported by the District’s
Department of Health.
Dr. Joxel Garcia, Director of the Department of Health, testified that, “a physician who
provides ongoing care and treatment of his or her patient is in the best position to discuss and
recommend the benefits and risks of a selected therapy, including marijuana, as well as recognize
any potential side effects or drug interactions for their patient.” The Committee concurs.
Accordingly, Bill 20-766 would repeal the statutory list of qualifying conditions, and instead
allow physicians to decide when the use of medical marijuana would be appropriate for their
patients. Using a patient-centric model – where the primary focus is on patient safety and care –
will make the medical marijuana program in the District work better for those patients in need of
medical treatment.
Increasing the Number of Plants
The 2010 Act also prohibited cultivation centers from possessing more than 95 living
marijuana plants at any one time.15 At the public hearing on Bill 20-766 and Bill 20-678, a
number of witnesses testified about how this plant limit was impacting the medical marijuana
program. For example, Ken Archer testified that child patients typically ingest oil extracted from
the marijuana plant. Mr. Archer noted that the process to extract oil from the plant requires a
large number of plants.16 Similarly, Kristin Farthing testified that increasing the plant count will
help manufacturers create products for patients like her who have asthma, and as a result must
find alternative ways to use marijuana, other than smoking the plant.17 David Guard testified that
Testimony of Lauren Padgett, p. 2 (“Having a restrictive conditions list sends the message to people who are not
covered that their suffering is not great enough to get the medicine they deserve.”).
13
California Health and Safety Code § 11362.7(h).
14
105 CMR 725.010(J).
15
Section 7(e)(2) of the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment initiative of 1998, effective February 25,
2010 (D.C. Law 13-315; D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.06(e)(2)).
16
Testimony of Ken Archer, p. 2.
17
Testimony of Kristen Farthing, p. 1-2.
12
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 5 of 11
the plant count needs to be increased to allow the District to make available recent innovations
such as the development of strains high in cannabidiol18 for the treatment of seizure disorders.19
Currently, only three other jurisdictions – New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Delaware –
have capped the number of plants that a cultivation center may grow at a finite number. New
Mexico’s medical marijuana program has experienced shortages on several occasions. 20 New
Mexico raised its plant count from 95 to 150 living plants in 2010, yet the state is again
considering raising the plant cap to 300.21 When dispensaries cannot meet the demand of its
patients, some patients may consider buying marijuana on the criminal market, while other will
simply suffer without a medicine that can improve their quality of life.22
The plant limit was originally set at 95 living plants because of concern that the federal
government would be more prone to enforce federal marijuana laws against what they perceived
to be large-scale medical marijuana centers.23 The plant limit was also created to avoid triggering
a federal mandatory minimum in sentencing that requires 5 years of imprisonment for
individuals found possessing 100 or more living marijuana plants.24 However, the most recent
guidance from the Department of Justice on the issue has rendered that concern moot. Deputy
Attorney General James Cole wrote in an August 29, 2013 memorandum that “prosecutors
should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for
assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates [DOJ’s] enforcement priorities.”25 In
addition, the landscape surrounding medical marijuana in the United States has changed
dramatically over the past few years. The Committee believes that the benefits of increasing the
plant count outweigh the perceived concerns. Accordingly, Bill 20-766 would increase the
allowable plant count from 95 to 500 plants.
For all the reasons explained above, the Committee recommends approval of this bill as
amended.
II.
February 4, 2014
LEGISLATIVE CHRONOLOGY
Bill 20-678, the “Medical Marijuana Plant Cultivation Amendment Act of
2014,” is introduced by Councilmember Grosso, and cosponsored by
Councilmembers Cheh, Evans, Bowser, and Wells.
Cannabidiol, typically referred to as “CBD,” is one of at least 60 active cannabinoids found in marijuana. CBD is
considered to have a wider scope of medical applications than tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), especially for
epilepsy and other seizure disorders.
19
Testimony of David A. Guard, p. 2.
20
Testimony of Robert Capecchi, p. 1-2.
21
Peter St. Cyr, Medical Pot Rules Spark Debate, Sante Fe Reporter, June 16, 2014, available at
http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-8798-medical-pot-rules-spark-debate.html.
22
Letter from Robert J. Cappecchi to Deborah Harvey, Delaware Division of Public Health, October 21, 2013,
available at http://www.mpp.org/states/delaware/DE-compassion-center-regs-comments.pdf.
23
Testimony of Robert Capecchi, p. 3.
24
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
25
Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, United States Department of
Justice, August 29, 2013, available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf.
18
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 6 of 11
February 4, 2014
Bill 20-678 is referred sequentially to the Committee on Health and the
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety.
February 14, 2014
Notice of Intent to Act on Bill 20-678 is published in the District of
Columbia Register.
April 8, 2014
Bill 20-766, the “Medical Marijuana Expansion Amendment Act of
2014,” is introduced by Chairman Mendelson and Councilmembers
Alexander, Barry, Bowser, Bonds, Catania, Evans, Cheh, Graham, Grosso,
McDuffie, Orange, and Wells.
April 8, 2014
Bill 20-766 is referred sequentially to the Committee on the Judiciary and
Public Safety and the Committee on Health.
April 18, 2014
Notice of Intent to Act on Bill 20-766 is published in the District of
Columbia Register.
May 9, 2014
Notice of a Public Hearing on both Bill 20-678 and Bill 20-766 is
published in the District of Columbia Register.
June 12, 2014
The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety and the Committee on
Health hold a joint public hearing on Bill 20-678 and Bill 20-766.
July 1, 2014
The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety marks-up Bill 20-766.26
III.
POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE
Dr. Joxel Garcia, MD, MBA, Director, Department of Health testified on behalf of the
Executive. Dr. Garcia testified in support of expanding the qualifying medical conditions to
mean any condition for which use of medical marijuana may be beneficial, as determined
between the patient and their physician. Dr. Garcia stated that he thinks that a patient-centric
model – where the primary focus is on patient safety and care – is the best model for the District,
especially considering the lack of clinical trial that would support FDA approval of medical
marijuana. Dr. Garcia suggested adding the phrase “bona fide” to the bill between the word
“patient’s” and the word “physician” so that the new provision reads: “(17) “Qualifying medical
condition” means any condition for which treatment with medical marijuana would be beneficial,
as determined by the patient’s bona fide physician.”27 Dr. Garcia, however, stated that there is
currently no demonstrated need to expand the plant limit to 500 plants. Dr. Garcia stated that
most, if not all, cultivation centers will be required to submit a new plan to expand their facilities
26 The bill contains section 2 of Bill 20-678.
27 The Committee did not include this suggestion in the committee print because District law already requires a
“bona fide physician-patient relationship” before a physician can recommend the use of medical marijuana to a
qualified patient. See D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.05(a).
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 7 of 11
to meet the increase in plants, as currently operating cultivation centers have designed their
facility schematics based upon the current limit of 95 plants.
IV.
COMMENTS OF ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMISSIONS
The Committee received no testimony or comments from Advisory Neighborhood
Commissions.
V.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS
The Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety held a public hearing on Bills 20-766
and 20-678 on June 12, 2014. The testimony summarized below is from that hearing. A copy of
the witness list is attached to this report; the video recording of the hearings (available online at
http://oct.dc.gov/services/on_demand_video/channel_13.asp) is incorporated by reference. A
copy of submitted testimony is part of the hearing record and is available through the Office of
the Secretary.
The following witnesses testified at the hearing:
Ken Archer, public witness, testified in support of both bills. Mr. Archer stated that his
son has been diagnosed with epilepsy, causing him to have a large number of seizures. Mr.
Archer said that he tried several treatments and medications for epilepsy, but that these
medications did not work for his son. Mr. Archer said that he plans to give his son medical
marijuana if he loses control of his son’s seizures again. Mr. Archer stated that raising the plant
count is important because child medical marijuana patients typically ingest oils extracted from
the plant, which require far more plants than it would if the plant was being smoked. Mr. Archer
also stated that medication decisions should be made between patients and their doctors.
Kristen Farthing, public witness, testified in support of both bills. Ms. Farthing testified
that she has been diagnosed with endometriosis, which causes a number of severe symptoms.
Ms. Farthing stated that she has tried a number of medications and treatments, but that these
drugs often have severe side effects. Despite the fact that endometriosis meets every criterion in
the District’s law for being a “qualifying condition,” Ms. Farthing has been unable to get a
recommendation to use medical marijuana. Ms. Farthing also pointed out that her specialized
gynecological surgeon lives in Maryland. As a result, she will have to find a new doctor in the
District because a recommendation for medical marijuana from Maryland cannot be filled in the
District, even though prescriptions for pain killers can.
John Evans, public witness, testified in support of both bills. Mr. Evans said that he
works to ensure that veterans with PTSD have safe access to medical marijuana. Mr. Evans
stated that increasing the plant count is critical to patient care, as it would allow a greater variety
of strains and allow for the production of concentrates and other edible forms of medical
marijuana.
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 8 of 11
Richard Kennedy, PhD, public witness, testified in support of both bills. Mr. Kennedy
stated that the number of plants being grown is far too low for a city of D.C.’s size and it is more
efficient to expand the existing grow centers rather than opening new ones. Mr. Kennedy also
stated that letting doctors decide when to recommend medical marijuana merely applies the same
rule that exists for other drugs.
Vanessa West, General Manager, Metropolitan Wellness Center, testified in support of
both bills. Ms. West stated that the cost of medical marijuana in the District is twice as high as
any other medical marijuana program in the country. Ms. West urged the Department of Health
to engage cultivators and understand the requirements for them to produce edibles, so that we
can modify the program and open the door for edible production in the next 90 days.
Garrett Vogel, Americans for Safe Access/Virginia NORML, testified in support of both
bills. Mr. Vogel stated that he has a rare condition that causes severe seizures, and that the use of
medical marijuana has allowed him to cut the use of prescription medications in half. Mr. Vogel
stated that with the increased number of qualifying conditions, the plant count should be
increased to allow patients to access oils, extracts, and other edibles.
David Guard, Capitol Care/Cultivation, testified in support of both bills. Mr. Guard
stated that the bill would bring relief to many District residents who have failed to find success
with other treatment options. Mr. Guard said increasing the plant count is critical to ensuring a
diverse, consistent, and affordable supply of medical marijuana to approved patients. Mr. Guard
stated that recent innovations such as the development of strains high in CBD for the treatment
of seizure disorders require the ability to select from a larger genetic pool to ensure that growers
procedure the appropriate products for each unique patient population.
Robert Capecchi, Deputy Director of State Policies, Marijuana Policy Project, testified
in support of Bill 20-678. Mr. Capecchi stated that this bill was necessary to ensure that all of the
District’s medical marijuana patients have access to the medicine their physician has
recommended they use. Mr. Capecchi also stated that only three other jurisdictions have capped
the number of plants a grower may cultivate: New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Mr.
Capecchi reported that there have been problem with shortages in New Mexico and Delaware.
Mr. Capecchi stated that given the Department of Health’s recent approval of new qualifying
conditions, it is virtually certain that D.C. will face the same shortages.
Michael Liszewski, Director of Gov’t Affairs, Americans for Safe Access, testified in
support of both bills. Mr. Liszewski stated that the bill would become a model for the rest of the
nation. Mr. Liszewski stated it is important for physicians to make the determination of whether
medical marijuana is appropriate for qualified patients. Mr. Liszewski stated that the medical
marijuana program has not met its goals for registering patients, and that this is in large part
because of the restrictive list of qualifying conditions.
Steph Sherer, Executive Director, Americans for Safe Access/Private Citizen, testified
in support of both bills. Ms. Sherer stated that the restrictive list of qualifying conditions forces
patients, like herself, to find medical marijuana in an illegal manner. Ms. Sherer also stated that
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 9 of 11
she uses alcohol-based tinctures to administer medical marijuana, and that this form of ingesting
medical marijuana requires approximately four pounds of medical marijuana per year.
Dr. Malik Burnett, MD, MBA, Policy Manager, Office of National Affairs, Drug Policy
Alliance, testified in support of both bills. Dr. Burnett stated that the bill would improve access
for patients to participate in the medical marijuana program and will also restore the full integrity
of the doctor-patient relationship. Mr. Burnett noted a 1999 report on Marijuana and Medicine
which states that “the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other
medications.”
Corey Barnette, Proprietor, District Growers, testified in support of both bills. Mr.
Barnette stated that the law should be changed to allow dispensaries and growers to transfer their
licenses to new locations. Mr. Barnette said that the rule prohibiting these businesses from
relocating could impact the supply of medical marijuana for patients. Mr. Barnette also stated
that growers have difficulty finding capital because of federal law.
Rabbi Jeffrey Khan, Owner and Operator, Takoma Wellness Center, testified in support
of both bills. Rabbi Khan asked the Council to pass the legislation in order to untie the hands of
physicians in the District and allow doctors to decide, case by base, what is best for folks living
with illness. Rabbi Khan also stated that the medical marijuana program will experience
shortages if the plant count is not increased.
Lauren Padgett, public witness, testified in support of Bill 20-766. Ms. Padgett testified
that she has been living with chronic pain from lupus since 2009, and that she uses cannabis to
manage her symptoms. Unlike other painkillers prescribed to her, marijuana provided her relief
without the harmful side effects. Ms. Padgett also stated that her doctor is comfortable with her
using marijuana on her own, but she won’t formally recommend it for her unless the condition is
approved by law. Ms. Padgett stated that the restrictive conditions list sends the message to
people who are not covered that their suffering is not great enough to get the medicine that they
deserve.
Cathy Jolly, Business Development, Franwell, Inc., shared her company’s tracking
system, which allows medical marijuana programs to more effectively track the production of
marijuana from seed to sale. Ms. Jolly stated that Colorado’s tracking system allows the state to
locate and audit each of the 450,000 living plants currently being grown in Colorado. Such a
tracking system also allows states to test edible marijuana products to ensure their concentration.
Dr. Krishna Updhya, MD, MPH, FAAP, public witness, testified in opposition to Bill
20-766. Dr. Updhya stated that marijuana is not a medicine and that there is no medical
justification for expanding the qualifying conditions. Dr. Updhya stated that there is also
evidence that medical marijuana causes harm. For example, research shows that three-fourths of
adolescents in substance abuse treatment programs in Denver reported use of someone else’s
medical marijuana.
Dr. Patricia D. Hawkins, PhD, Executive Director, DC Community AIDS Network,
testified in support of both bills. Dr. Hawkins stated that raising the plant limit is necessary to
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 10 of 11
meet the existing and anticipated demand related to increasing the number of qualifying
conditions. Dr. Hawkins stated that there is not yet an extensive body of large-sample, peerreviewed research, but that it is imperative to allow physicians to determine whether or not
medical marijuana will be the treatment of choice for an individual.
VI.
IMPACT ON EXISTING LAW
Bill 20-766 makes two amendments to the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical
Treatment initiative of 1998.28 First, the bill would repeal the statutory list of qualifying
conditions, and instead allow physicians to decide when and for what conditions medical
marijuana would be appropriate. Second, the bill increases the number of living plants that a
cultivation center may possess from 95 to 500.
VII.
FISCAL IMPACT
The attached DATE Fiscal Impact Statement from the Chief Financial Officer states that
funds are sufficient to implement Bill 20-766. This legislation requires no additional resources or
personnel.
VIII.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1
States the short title of Bill 20-766.
Section 2
Subsection (a) Amends the definition of “qualifying medical condition” to allow
physicians to decide when and for what conditions medical marijuana would be
appropriate, thereby removing the statutory list of qualifying conditions for which
medical marijuana is available.
Subsection (b) Increases the number of living plants that a cultivation center may
possess from 95 to 500.
Section 3
Adopts the fiscal impact statement.
Section 4
Provides the effective date.
IX.
COMMITTEE ACTION
On July 1, 2014, the Committee met to consider Bill 20-766. The meeting was called to
order at __:__ _M, and Bill 20-766 was the only voting on the agenda. After ascertaining a
quorum (Chairperson Wells and Councilmembers __, __, and __), Chairperson Wells moved the
28
The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment initiative of 1998, effective February 25, 2010 (D.C. Law
13-315; D.C. Official Code § 7-1671.01 et seq.).
Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
DRAFT Report on Bill 20-766
July 1, 2014
Page 11 of 11
report, with leave for staff to make technical, editorial, and conforming changes. After an
opportunity for discussion, the vote to approve the report was _______ ( ). Chairperson Wells
then moved the print, with leave for staff and the General Counsel to make technical changes and
conforming changes.
Councilmember ______began the discussion . . .
After an opportunity for discussion, the vote to approve the print was _________
(__).The meeting adjourned at __:__ _M.
X.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Bill 20-766 as introduced.
2.
Witness list.
3.
Fiscal impact statement.
4.
Legal sufficiency determination by the General Counsel.
5.
Comparative Print.
6.
Committee Print for Bill 20-766.