It was standing room only today at the State Capitol in a room used for capacity crowds, as lawmakers took up the first–and probably not the last–bill this session aimed at regulating constitutionally approved medical marijuana in Colorado. The Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed Senate Bill 109 on a 6-1 vote, a move that didn’t sit well with a number of medical-marijuana patients and advocates who converged on the hearing to urge lawmakers against encroaching on a statewide vote in 2000 that legalized the substance’s use for pain and other maladies.

Earlier in the day, a coalition of patient-advocacy groups had gathered on the Capitol’s west steps to express their concerns with the proposed legislation.

“We’re here to remind legislators that this is about patients’ rights as they consider a bill that would weaken the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship,”  said Brian Vicente, of the group Sensible Colorado.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, clarifies and defines the doctor-patient relationship when a physician recommends the use of medical marijuana.

Proponents point to what they say have been abuses of the law by some doctors who issue recommendations–which are not the same as prescriptions–on flimsy pretexts. Critics of the measure say it is a solution in search of a problem and could stand in the way of patients who truly need the therapy. Those testifying in favor of the bill, who have also been instrumental in outlining the provisions of the bill, came primarily from law enforcement.  Those opposing  the bill, making up the lion’s share of today’s crowd, were patients, providers and care givers.

Jason Ellingson, a medical-marijuana patient, told committee members the hurdles are already significant in procuring what he and others said is a life-giving source of pain mitigation.

“We have enough medical stuff going on as it is, and we shouldn’t have to add another piece to an already difficult situation,” Ellingson said.

He said the difficulty he and others are experiencing are both financial and logistical.  Federal laws preclude medical providers who receive federal dollars from recommending medical marijuana, and the Romer-Spence bill would further impede a patient’s ability to see a doctor with whom they have an established relationship, Ellingson said.

Proponents of the measure, however, said too many doctors are recommending medical marijuana without proper oversight, causing a proliferation of usage that may or may not be medically necessary and blurring the lines of legality. They said that makes it extremely difficult for law enforcement and the courts to do their jobs.

Romer, in defense of his bill, declared, “This bill marks an end of the wild, wild west.”

Although medical marijuana has been legal for a decade, dispensaries serving patients have popped up rapidly in several Colorado communities in the past year following a number of federal and state regulatory developments. Lawmakers have taken on the issue as a result.

The emotional nature of today’s testimony was not lost on the panel and particularly Romer, who spoke up after the committee heard from a cancer patient with chronic pain who said he has been unable to use medical marijuana because he is a parolee.

“We have to listen with our hearts because this is a tough issue,” said Romer, who noted that he wants a common-sense solution and is willing to look at ways to amend the bill as it moves forward to consider some of the concerns brought up in committee.

The lone “no” vote was cast by the committee’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R- Broomfield. Mitchell  expressed concern that the bill was arbitrarily singling out one kind of treatment for additional regulation, particularly when a judge would retain discretion anyway over whether or not a parolee could obtain a lawful remedy for pain.

“I find it odd that a judge would intervene in a medical decision in this instance but not in others,” said Mitchell.

Later in the session, lawmakers are also expected to consider legislation that could rein in–or even roll back–the recent proliferation of medical-marijuana dispensaries in Denver and other communities. Some cities, including Denver, already have enacted ordinances of their own that either curb or in some cases ban the dispensaries. That impending legislation is believed likely to spark an even testier debate than today’s measure.