MFL Commissioner's Blog: April 9, 2008 Archive

It's that time of session when lawmakers break out into conference committee, all in an effort to earn you more points, and maybe pass a few laws while they're at it. Today, we're having a few, including Rep. Karla Bigham and Sen. Ann Rest's bill on background checks,
Rep. Joe Atkins and Sen. Tarryl Clark's "Good Faith" insurance bill, and a couple of bills omnibus bills like Sen. Dick Cohen and Rep. Lyndon Carlson's budget bills, like the one the Commish liveblogged last week, and Rep. Frank Hornstein and Sen. Steve Murphy's transportation policy bill.

Perhaps the most notorious bill every session, one that pretty thoroughly cuts across party lines (former Speaker Steve Sviggum, no liberal he, was a big proponent) is the medical marijuana bill, and it's getting a hearing in the House Ways and Means committee at 1:30. It should be broadcast online, and you can watch it here. The Commish will be liveblogging this one when it begins, so keep checking back through the afternoon.

Medical marijuana bill hearing is beginning...now.

1:33 - Rep. Solberg is explaining that the bill, SF345, was on the House floor at the end of the session last year, but wasn't taken up, so it gets sent back to the last committee that saw it, Ways and Means. So that's what happens to all those bills.

1:35 - Rep. Huntley is offering an oral amendment - to change the dates, nothing fun.

1:38 - Date changes went through to apply it to the next fiscal year, nothing controversial yet.

1:42 - Rep. Dean is asking for a roll call on the bill. No debate? What a rip-off.

1:43 - Rep. Kahn just had a pretty good joke. She asked if Rep. Steve Drazkowski is required to vote the same way as former Speaker Steve Sviggum did. Sviggum, you'll remember, carried the bill last year.

1:45 - Well, they just voted on it and approved it to be sent to the floor by a 13-4 vote. Best comment was probably from Rep. Ron Ernhardt, who said "Yes, for some odd reason," when his name was called off the role. That's it, I guess. The Commish sure guessed wrong when he thought this would be a lightning rod issue. Maybe it will generate more debate on the House floor.

So what would this bill actually do, besides give people fodder for Cheech and Chong jokes involving lawmakers? From my reading, here's what it would do:

-People suffering from a "Delibitating medical condition," including cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, hepatitis C, Tourette's Syndrome and other painful conditions listed or approved by a physician, would have to register for an picture ID card, for a price of $100. They would need written certification by a physician to get the ID card, and could have a primary caregiver over 18 register too, to help them with their treatment, presumably to pick it up and help them "administer" it, or roll the doobie and things like that.

-Allow a registered organization to have 2.5 ounces of marijuana, and 12 plants for each patient. A patient could receive a maximum of 2.5 ounces every 15 days.

-The marijuana couldn't be smoked in a school bus or other forms of public transportation, on school grounds, in a correctional facility, in any public place, or anywhere that the smoke may be inhaled by a minor. Patients also could not drive any "motor vehicle, aircraft, train, or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana." I suppose you have to cover your bases.

-No state-funded health care or private insurers would have to reimburse a person for the costs from the medical marijuana, and employers wouldn't have to accommodate the use in the workplace.

-Submitting false records to the Health Commissioner would be considered a felony and no one convicted of a drug felony could be listed as a primary caregiver.

Rep. Solberg mentioned that this bill had gone through a number of committees last session, and in the humble opinion of the Commish, this law seems to have been vetted pretty thoroughly, with a lot of safeguards, like insurers' attitudes, and making sure that the IDs don't fall into the wrong hands, built into it. I suppose the only way we'll know how effective those safeguards are will be if it's tried. The 13-4 vote leads me to think it will probably get approved on the House floor, but the governor has said in the past he does not support medical marijuana. Is a veto override in the cards?

A provision in SF3223 says you might have to. The transportation policy bill would make driving without a seat belt fastened a primary offense - meaning that if a police officer sees you riding while unbuckled, he or she could pull you over for that and that alone.

Sen. David Tomassoni offered an amendment to strip the provision . "We already require seat belts to be worn and there are enough things people can already get pulled over for," Tomassoni said, according to our friends at the Senate Briefly. Sen. Tomassoni is no fan of this provision, and he did the same thing on the Senate floor last year, but it was shot down then too.

I can see where Sen. Tomassoni's coming from on this one, because I think many people get a foul taste in their mouths when the government tries to outlaw doing something stupid, like leaving an ice fishing shack out on the lake too close to spring. But everybody shares the costs when tax dollars are used to remove the shack, and maybe its occupant, from the water. The figures give the opposite side of this argument a lot of ammunition.

The state's Department of Public Safety supports the bill, and put out this fact sheet about it.

Some of the more surprising findings:

-More than half of the 373 vehicle occupants killed in 2006 -- 197 -- were not wearing seat belts.

-Traffic deaths are the leading cause of death for people younger than 34.

-The " economic impact to community costs" are estimated at more than $1 million per fatality, and $60,000 per injury.

-A primary seat belt law is expected to increase people wearing seat belts by 5 to 10 percentage points, saving 18 to 34 lives per year.

Here's a story on the costs of car crashes. A study by AAA found $164 billion is lost every year because of crashes, including the congestion, health costs and costs of lost time and death or injury.

Sen. Linda Higgins pointed out in the hearing that p rom season is coming up , and "teens regularly die or are severely injured after not wearing their seat belts because they did not want to wrinkle their dresses or tuxedos."

A column by Michael Kinsley recently made this point.

When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death -- especially your death in a car crash -- does impose externalities on me. I would pay good money not to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right, like the right to choose the time and manner of one's death, may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not.

Is this nanny statism, or a legitimate direction for public policy when the costs are considered? Its a tough question, but one we'll hear answered by the Legislature.