Health. This was later changed to Public Safety due primarily to Health Director Bruce Anderson's strong opposition to having it housed with his department (despite DOH's support for the intent of the legislation as a whole). He maintained that because DPS has purview over drug regulations, it was the appropriate venue.  This change was a political compromise since many of us believe that a health issue such as medical cannabis belongs in the health department and that putting it with public safety sends the message that this is still about law enforcement.
"Medical use," as defined in the bill is "the acquisition, possession, cultivation, use, distribution, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition." It specifies that "distribution" is limited to transfer of cannabis and paraphernalia from the primary caregiver to the patient. My layperson's interpretation of "acquisition" is that a qualifying patient or caregiver may purchase it from the black market (though the seller would not be legally protected) and/or cultivate a limited number of plants as long as the total is less than the amount defined in the bill.
A "primary caregiver," must be over 18 and, like the patient, must register with Public Safety. A patient, of course, is not required to have a caregiver if he or she can take care of their own needs. A compromise provision states that each primary caregiver can only care for one patient at any given time (an earlier draft permitted one caregiver to care for up to three patients.) It's unclear what the implications of this provision are for potential patient cooperatives, buyers' clubs or the like.  Oregon does have the former and an official Oregon DOH handout, "10 Most Frequently Asked Questions," provides its contact information.
The mechanism by which a physician certifies a patient as qualified is called "written certification" as distinct from a prescription. (Federal law, which remains in effect, prohibits prescription of marijuana because it is remains in Schedule I,
the most restrictive category.) This statement must say that in the doctor's professional opinion "the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition and the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the qualifying patient."  DPS will likely create a standardized form for this which is good since it is less burdensome for the doctor; it will be in effect for one year. What is not so good is that the doctor must register the names, addresses, and patient i.d. numbers with DPS.  Clearly there is room for abuse here. During the expected hearings on rules (see below) there will be opportunities to address and hopefully remedy this requirement which raises concerns about confidentiality.
Other facts about the bill: minors are permitted access to mmj with their parents or guardians as caregivers; use is prohibited in virtually all public areas; physicians will not be penalized in any manner if they follow the procedures outlined in the bill; marijuana and paraphernalia seized from a patient or caregiver must be returned immediately after a court ruling, BUT (yes, another compromise) law enforcement is not "responsible for the care and maintenance of such plants"; there are small fines for misrepresentation of one's medical situation to law enforcement. There is an "affirmative defense" available to prosecuted persons who meet the requirements outlined in the bill. It is important to keep in mind that this bill carves out an exception to our state's laws on marijuana; all other laws regarding cannabis remain in effect.
Clearly many questions remain. One of the major ones is will the federal government take actions against patients under existing federal law? The answer is probably not, but there are no guarantees.  In The Honolulu Advertiser (4/27/00) it was reported that Hawai'i US attorney Steve Alm says he has no intention of obtaining the names of people who must register with the DPS: " 'That will not happen,' Alm said." Nonetheless, the language in the actual bill is ambiguous. It reads "Upon an inquiry by a law enforcement agency, the Department of Public Safety shall verify whether the

to page 3
Another "First"
specify? Below are a few of the major provisions with some commentary. 
First SB 862, HD1 sets forth various definitions. An "adequate supply" is defined as "not to exceed three mature plants, four immature plants and one ounce of usable marijuana [dried leaves and flowers, excluding seeds, stalks and roots] per each mature plant." While these amounts would suffice for many patients who only need a few puffs before meals or first thing in the morning to quell their nausea, for those with other conditions, such as glaucoma, they are inadequate. These amounts were taken directly from the Oregon law and are the highest amounts permitted by any state. (Some jurisdictions, such as Oakland, permit more.)
Next "debilitating medical condition" is defined. This is defined in two different ways. It lists specific conditions which would qualify (e.g., cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS) and it also lists symptoms which would qualify a patient (e.g. wasting syndrome, severe pain, etc.). It also has a provision for a physician or "potentially qualifying patient" to request that other medical conditions be added. The bill says the Department of Health will make that determination, but since the Department of Public Safety will be maintaining the patient registry, the departments will likely collaborate on this.
A "qualifying patient" then is one who has one of the conditions or the symptoms as defined above. They are required to register with the Department of Public Safety and the department may charge them a fee "not to exceed $25". This is a good provision since the Oregon statute calls for a fee of $150 renewable annually which is a substantial burden for many patients.  The early drafts of the bill had no registry provision at all, a  controversial issue among proponents. Some believe that only an official registry thoroughly protects patients; while others believe that arming oneself with a physician's written certification (as in Washington state) is adequate and poses less risk to the patient's confidentiality.