Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's Prepared Remarks on SB 5073 partial veto

8/7/2019 Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's Prepared Remarks on SB 5073 partial veto

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/washington-gov-chris-gregoires-prepared-remarks-on-sb-5073-partial-veto 1/4

1

ESSB 5073 Partial Veto

Governor Gregoire

Olympia, Washington

Remarks as prepared

Good afternoon.

Before we take action on today’s bills, I wanted to take a few minutes to address Senate Bill

5073 and the actions I will take on it today.

I understand full well this is an emotional issue — for many it is a matter of finding a way to

tolerate painful and devastating illnesses. For others it is a hopeful sign that legalization couldbe a step closer.

I understand all that. But I’d like to address the facts and the myths surrounding medical

marijuana in our state and my concerns with some of the language in the bill. I’ve heard from

people on all sides of the issue. Some have asked for a full veto, others have said to vetonothing. It is not that simple for me as I look at it.

First and foremost, I want to be clear — I support allowing the use of medical marijuana; it is a

compassionate choice and is an appropriate choice for Washingtonians who are suffering through

devastating medical conditions and have found no other remedy for their pain or debilitatingconditions.

I had a legal secretary myself who was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She wanted to keep

working; she did not want to stay home in those final months of her life. She was in excruciatingpain; her doctor suggested she use marijuana to address the pain. She did, and she lived out her

life working, enjoying those last days.

So I’m acutely aware of how important this is to medical patients.

In 1998 voters approved an initiative to remove the fear of state criminal prosecution for patients

who use medical marijuana.

My action today takes nothing away from that voter passed initiative — in fact it will help

strengthen some patient protections. Some of the inaccuracies out there indicate otherwise andare creating unneeded fear and confusion for some qualified medical marijuana patients.

I support that initiative and in 2007 I signed legislation giving designated providers the sameprotections that primary caregivers have under state law. I also expanded the list of illnesses thatmedical marijuana can be used for from cancer, HIV, MS, epilepsy, and seizures to also include:

Crohn’s disease, Hepatitis C, anorexia, and other conditions approved by the state medical

quality assurance commission.



2

Last year I signed a bill adding nurse practitioners, naturopaths, physician assistants and

osteopathic physician assistants to the list of health care providers who can recommend medicalmarijuana.

These efforts have been despite the fact that medical use of marijuana is still a federal crime. We

have provided what is within our authority — assurance to patients and health care professionalsthat the state recognizes the medical benefits of marijuana and they will not be prosecuted in

state courts.

However, possession and use of marijuana — medical or otherwise — can still be prosecuted in

federal courts. It wasn’t until two years ago that in the Ogden memo, by the US Department of

Justice, they said that they would not use limited resources to focus on seriously ill individualswho use marijuana in compliance with state law.

Yet that same memo, by the Justice Department pointed out that they maintain the authority to

do so.

The legislation brought forth this year by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles is an attempt to further

clarify the extreme complexity around the use and availability of medical marijuana and to givepatients and providers appropriate protections under state law.

I want to thank Senator Kohl-Welles for her leadership on this issue and want to make clear that

I stand with her in support of her intent to resolve unsettled issues.

However, as I have told her and the people I have met with on this issue, I cannot approve the

bill in full. My foremost concern is that a number of provisions could put state employees at risk of serious personal consequences.

I shared my concerns with Senator Kohl-Welles and Rep. Cody in the House as they arose and

our staffs worked together on rewrites of the legislation to address this central concern.

But the legislative process ran out of time and the bill that was passed by the legislature was the

original bill that did not address my concerns. I have been and remain willing to fashion a bill

that promotes better access for patients without putting state employees at legal risk from federalenforcement.

And I remain open, and would very much like to work with the legislature to establish aconfidential registry of medical marijuana patients to prevent unfounded searches and arrests of

these individuals under state enforcement.

Unfortunately, the registry provisions of the bill are intertwined with other provisions that Icould not approve, so further work is absolutely necessary.



3

But several portions of the bill will stand:

1) I have kept sections of the bill that preserve Initiative 692’s affirmative defense from

state prosecution for patients and those who assist them with the medical use of

marijuana.

2) I have kept sections of the bill that provide additional state law protection from civil and

criminal penalties.

Parental rights may not be restricted solely due to the medical use of cannabiswithout showing impairment in the performance of parenting functions.

Qualifying patients may not be denied an organ transplant solely because of medical marijuana use.

Medical marijuana patients and their providers may grow cannabis for their own

use, designate a provider to grow on their behalf, or participate in a collectivegarden with other qualifying patients without fear of state criminal prosecutions.

But the central concerns I raised still stand: we cannot presume to assure protections to one

group of people — patients, providers and health care professionals — in a way that subjectsanother group, Department of Health and Department of Agriculture employees to federal arrest

or criminal liability. That is not acceptable to me; it is not workable.

Some have predicted that the federal government would not arrest or prosecute state employees.

Yet, the two United States Attorneys in Washington state were very direct in telling me that state

employees performing activities under this bill would not be protected from civil or criminal

liability under the federal law.

The bill’s sponsors asked me to get this position in writing and the letter that followed reiterated

this position.

Specifically the US Attorneys said, ―state employees who conducted activities mandated by the

Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability.‖

Their letter followed closely other signals that the landscape is changing out there. In February a

US Attorney notified the City of Oakland that an ordinance passed there was contrary to federal

laws and would open marijuana growers to prosecution, even if such activities are permitted

under state law.

This week the US Attorney in Colorado reiterated this position. Just this morning the US

Attorney in Rhode Island did the same. Similar letters are pending in a number of other states.



4

In early February the US Attorney for Eastern Washington notified landlords of dispensaries that

they could face penalties if those dispensaries remained open.

The federal raids in Spokane yesterday are an indication that we need to take the US Attorney at

his word. Let me clear up the confusion on the misperceptions I’ve heard following those raids.

Some have erroneously claimed that this bill would prevent the federal government from taking

the action they did yesterday. That is not true. No state legislation could prevent that action.

The US Attorney has reiterated that just this morning.

State law does not trump federal law.

Some have urged me to sign the bill anyway and assert states’ rights. But I have to ask, is it a

state right to violate federal law? Is it a state right to put our state employees at risk of federal

arrest and prosecution?

The state does have the ability to decriminalize medical marijuana activities as a matter of statelaw.

That is the right asserted by Initiative 692.

As Governor, whose number one priority is the well being of our state, I can’t disregard federal

law and our two US Attorneys on the chance that state employees may never be prosecuted.What do you say to them if they are? What would you tell that employee?

No responsible business or other employer would put their employees in the position of beingsubject to federal law enforcement actions, and I won’t either.

What I will do, and what I have done, is pledged to work on a solution that does not come at the

expense of our employees but still protects our citizens.

I remain open to legislation to exempt qualifying patients and their providers from state criminal

penalties when they join in nonprofit cooperative organizations that produce, process anddistribute medical marijuana. I also remain open to legislation that establishes a secure and

confidential registration system to provide patients with protections from arrest and seizure.

Ultimately the state is limited in its ability to address the issues. The real change – the real

change – lies with and must be made at the federal level by the federal government.

Thank you.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's Prepared Remarks on SB 5073 partial veto

Documents

Transcript of Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire's Prepared Remarks on SB 5073 partial veto