"a serious attempt to shore up the state's medical marijuana law, which has been around for nearly a decade without defining the 60-day supply patients are allowed to have on hand." Woodward

This seems a peculiar approach. It might actually promote crime; as I suspect the vast majority of marijuana supplies in the U.S. are from illegal sources.

Wouldn't it make vastly more sense, particularly for long-term patients, to modify the law so that the patient may have a one year supply onhand?
Why?
That way the patient, or the patient's grandchildren, or whatever, can grow the supply needed; and that supply can last until the next harvest.

Isn't that a rather obvious win / win approach here?