|
Doctor advised drug for man's glaucoma
Kevin Graman
Staff writer
May 2, 2007
A state appeals court on Tuesday dismissed the conviction of a 64-year-old
Whitman County motel owner who grew marijuana to treat his glaucoma.
The Washington state Court of Appeals District III said Loren Hanson was
denied a medical marijuana defense in Whitman County Superior Court.
Hanson's Spokane attorney, Frank Cikutovich, said it may be the first
successful "affirmative defense" of a medical marijuana case in Washington
state.
"We couldn't be more happy, considering the client," who is in poor health
and allergic to other medications used to relieve eye pressure that causes
blindness, Cikutovich said.
With
the advice of his doctor who diagnosed glaucoma, Hanson began growing marijuana
for his personal use in 2004. Hanson said he took it externally, allowing the
smoke to waft around his face.
Glaucoma is one of the conditions specified under the state's Medical
Marijuana Act that resulted from the passage of Initiative 692 nine years
ago.
But on Aug. 24, 2004, the Quad Cities Drug Task Force raided Hanson's
business, the Manor Lodge Motel in Pullman, while Hanson was away. Detectives
seized 34 mature plants and cultivation equipment.
The following day, Hanson obtained written authorization for marijuana use
from his doctor and turned himself in to the Whitman County Sheriff's Office.
Despite the doctor's letter, he was charged with felony manufacture of
marijuana.
Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier denied admission of the
after-the-fact marijuana prescription, effectively denying Hanson a medical
marijuana defense.
On Tuesday, the appeals court ruled that Hanson was a "qualifying patient"
under the Medical Marijuana Act, which only requires that he qualify, that he
possess no more than a 60-day supply and that he present valid documentation
when law enforcement asks for it.
Cikutovich and his partner, attorney Patrick Stiley, also argued that the
Medical Marijuana Act effectively repeals the classification of marijuana as a
Schedule I drug. Such drugs, by legal definition, have no medical use. The
attorneys argued the Medical Marijuana Act clearly refutes that.
But the appeals court was unwilling to go that far. In the opinion, authored
by Judge Dennis Sweeny and with Judge Kenneth Kato concurring, the court said
the Medical Marijuana Act "recognizes that there are still inherent risks in
using marijuana" and does not supersede state law on its manufacture, sale or
possession for nonmedical purposes.
In a dissenting opinion, Appeals Court Judge Stephen Brown said the lower
court did not err in prohibiting admission of Hanson's after-the-fact
prescription, which was insufficient to support an affirmative defense.
Whitman County Deputy Prosecutor Byron Bedirian had not had time to study the
opinion and therefore could not say whether he would appeal to the state Supreme
Court.
He did say that he hoped the decision provides clarity to the Medical
Marijuana Act.
"If we can give law enforcement and medical marijuana patients' guidance,
there is utility in that," Bedirian said.
Spokesman Review
By Kevin Graman
Staff Writer
|
