On Thursday, the General Affairs Committee spent more than an hour questioning Medical Cannabis Commission appointees, Lorelle Mueting and Dr. Monica Oldenburg. Both appointees made their case to the committee on why they chose to apply and their qualifications. The committee asked both Mueting and Oldenburg if they would restrict forms of medical cannabis or advocate for those changes while serving on the commission. PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Medical marijuana regulation bill fails in legislature, leaving new commission to clarify rulesMueting said it is not stated in state statute if that is a power of the commission, so she is unsure that they would even have that ability. When questioned about past statements that someone should not be able to smoke, she said it would be important to look back at research and what other states have done. “Going back to the research and other states, I think it would be really important first to look at research if there is a benefit in some states and they’re showing that, then that’s something that I think the commission should take a look at. But again, I’m just one of five people that will be having a point or a perspective on the issue,” Mueting said. Oldenburg agreed that limiting forms of medical cannabis is currently not within the commission’s powers, but she did acknowledge her general opposition to smoking. “I could have a bias against smoking just as a physician,” Oldenburg said. “Smoking isn’t good for your lungs. It just isn’t. It doesn’t matter what you’re smoking.”When the appointees were asked if they supported creating a list of ailments that would be eligible, both agreed that it is currently not within the commission’s power, either. Oldenburg said, though, she would be open to having a conversation about research to be done on what a reasonable condition is.”I don’t know that it specifically states that I would hope that somehow, between if I’m appointed, five of us would be able to come together and say, you know, this is reasonable,” Oldenburg said. “As you’ve looked at the research. I think this is a reasonable condition for this. And again, we have other states to look at. I mean, we can say this has worked well, this hasn’t.”READ MORE: Gov. Jim Pillen appoints individuals to the Medical Cannabis Commission ahead of legislative debateMueting said making a list of ailments is not in the statute as an ability of the commission. When asked if the commission did have that power, if it would be something she would support, she said it’s possible and would be an interesting conversation to have among the commission members.”I would say that that would be something that we’d have to take a look at in a lot of other states, because we’re not the first state to do this,” Mueting said. “So, there are a lot of other states that have lists that we can look at and pull from. And then I think it would be important to do some research on those things.”Members of the public also testified. Some voiced support for the appointees. “As someone who is passionate about substance use prevention, she can bring a strength and view to the discussion that others will not have,” Mary O’Neill, chief operating officer of Heartland Family Service, said in support of Mueting.ADDITIONAL COVERAGE: Lawmakers consider measures to enact voter-approved medical marijuanaMany others testified in opposition to the appointees, like Angela Cornett, who said Mueting and Oldenburg have a history of openly voicing their concerns about medical cannabis, which is concerning.”It’s very unfair to the patients and families who have fought for over a decade,” Cornett said. “We just need people on the board that are going that believe in the value of medical cannabis and will do something to move the program forward.”Both Mueting and Oldenburg need to be confirmed by the full legislature before officially being named to the Medical Cannabis Commission. NAVIGATE: Home | Weather | Local News | National | Sports | Newscasts on demand |