Whenever new laws are created, they are supposed to balance out the need for regulation of an activity with the rights and freedoms of citizens. Given the thousands of state and federal laws on the books, it is inevitable that some of them will unintentionally conflict with one another. In these cases, some type of action must be taken to resolve the contradiction.
Case in point: abstinence vs. medical marijuana.
As a condition of sentences for many types of crimes (like DUI, drug possession, or domestic abuse), the court will impose what is known as an abstinence provision upon the offender. Usually, this means that the individual will be granted some measure of freedom (such as house arrest, parole, or release on bail) in exchange for an agreement to avoid illicit drugs and/or alcohol.
But a few years ago, the state of Washington enacted legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana in certain cases of illness or debilitation. This law was passed despite marijuana’s current federal classification as an illegal drug.
So what happens if a person who is legally permitted to consume medical marijuana is placed under a court-ordered abstinence condition?
The attorney’s office for the city of Seattle has issued a memorandum which addresses this specific situation. The memo outlines a process by which a person may petition the court for an exception to the abstinence provision for medical marijuana. Here is a summation of that process:
The person must request a hearing before the appropriate court in order to be granted an exception.
The person must present information to the court which includes the name of the prescribing health care provider, the relevant medical condition, the correct dosage, and the proper approval paperwork.
If the person is being treated for alcohol or chemical dependency, he or she must also provide a letter of permission from the treating entity allowing him or her to consume medical marijuana.
If the court grants the individual’s request, he or she will not have to be subjected to supervision of the medical marijuana use unless it becomes apparent that the consumption of the drug is affecting the individual’s stability, treatment goals, or compliance with any other court-ordered restrictions.
This policy could be challenged in court by medical marijuana patients because it shifts the burden to defendants for lawfully prescribed medications.