Most lawmakers representing Butler County say they intend to support a medical marijuana bill that could come before the state House Tuesday for a final vote.

But the question of whether to legalize the drug’s usage continues to prove divisive — with some lawmakers saying they are entirely opposed to the idea, and others calling medical legalization premature and fraught with potential for abuse.

“My concern is that it’s driven primarily by emotion. None of this is proven medication,” said state Rep. R. Lee James, R-64th. “They don’t know what the dosage is; they don’t know what the efficacy is. It just seems premature to me, and that’s the reason I oppose it.”

The legislation, state Senate Bill 3, was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate in May 2015, in a 40 to 7 vote.

It would legalize the smokeless use of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, as a doctor-prescribed treatment and create a state-run bureaucracy, the State Board of Medical Cannabis Licensing, to oversee growers, processors and dispensers of the drug.

Supporters point to the drug’s potential to help children with seizure disorders as a motivating factor. They say the bill provides an alternative to narcotic cocktails of highly addictive and dangerous drugs that often have little positive effect for patients.

“The crux of the matter is that I have met people in my district, both young and old, suffering from debilitating diseases that can be alleviated with doctor-prescribed treatment of medical cannabis,” said state Sen. Elder Vogel, R-47th.

Vogel voted in May in support of the bill, and said he believes the bill strikes the proper balance between a patient’s right to treatment and properly regulating the use of marijuana — specifically, its creation of allowances for smokeless use.

State Sen. Don White, R-41st, also said the bill is responsible.

“I’m not a doctor or a scientist, but I’ve been convinced this is a product that can be legalized in a safe and controlled manner,” White said.

It’s a balance that state Reps. Jeff Pyle, R-60th, and Jim Marshall, R-14th, also believe has been properly struck.

Pyle said he can support the Senate bill precisely because of it’s built-in controls for the drug’s use, production and dispensing.

“It’s important for people to know this is not legalizing marijuana. The bill is tightly drawn to doctor-prescribed only, and then only in pill or oil form,” Pyle said.

Marshall said voters in his district support legalization, and that he’s been personally moved by the stories of families with children for which medical marijuana represents the last or best treatment option.

“Medical marijuana should be an option for these families,” he said.

But not everyone agrees that the bill does enough to regulate the drug’s use — or even that medical legalization of marijuana in general is possible to achieve responsibly.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, said he’s opposed to the idea, and sees any type of legalization as a move toward allowing recreational use.

“Many of the cast of characters that are promoting the legislation of ‘medical’ marijuana at the state Capitol would likely be the same individuals who would support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use,” Metcalfe said. “I believe medical marijuana is just a steppingstone for the full blown legalization of marijuana.”

One of the few state senators who voted against the bill last May, Scott Hutchinson. R-21st, said he opposes the idea because it doesn’t have the support of physicians, and is in his view an overreach by state lawmakers.

“Essentially this state legislation would invent an entirely new, multi-million-dollar bureaucratic industry with a simple solution exists — federal legalization and approval,” Hutchinson said.

The Pennsylvania Medical Society opposes the legalization of medical marijuana and published a white paper last year concluding more research is needed to show it can be safe and effective.

Officials at the federal government’s Drug Enforcement Administration announced Dec. 23 that they were relaxing regulations on clinical trials involving marijuana, but the drug remains on the DEA’s list of Schedule I narcotics. The classification means the government deems marijuana a dangerous and addictive drug with “no currently accepted medical use.”

Hutchinson said he’s also concerned about how legalization might contribute to the state’s crisis of drug addictions and deaths, as well as how medical legalization might affect young people’s view of marijuana.

“At a time when we are witnessing the absolute scourge of addiction in our communities including heroin and opioids ... why would we add another drug to that cocktail?” Hutchinson said.

Fierce debate over the issue of medical legalization has led the bill, which was first introduced in 2014, on a winding path to where it stands today.

After the bill was referred to the House from the Senate, it languished before the chamber’s Health and Rules committees before members of the Rules Committee voted 25-8 in November to refer it to the full House for a vote.

James, who is a member of the Rules Committee, was among the votes against moving the bill forward, while Rep. Brian Ellis, R-11th, cast a vote for advancing it.

Ellis, who was a member of the House’s task force on medical legalization, said making the drug legally available now doesn’t jump the gun even if physicians say more research is needed.

“I believe government needs to let the professionals do their jobs and study the drug. If they find it’s safe and effective ... then it should be available as a medical option. And that’s what we’re being asked to do, make the option available,” Ellis said.

As of Friday, House members had introduced hundreds of amendments to the original Senate bill. That presents a quandary for lawmakers like state Rep. Tedd Nesbit, R-8th, who is a member of the chamber’s Judiciary Committee.

Nesbit said a series of hearings on medical legalization changed his mind broadly regarding the issue, but that he continues to harbor concerns about the long-term effects of a bill legalizing medical use of marijuana and is specifically concerned with the number of possible changes that could be made to Senate Bill 3.

“With more than 200 amendments to be considered, Senate Bill 3 could be altered in any number of ways,” Nesbit said. “With any legislation we pass on this issue, we’re setting legal precedent. We’re not doctors, and I think there is a fine line between setting public policy and subscribing medical treatment.”

James said that as of Friday the House was scheduled to hold a second consideration of Senate Bill 3 today. Second considerations are typically when proposed amendments to a bill are reviewed and either withdrawn or acted upon — though James said the sheer volume of amendments in this case is exceptional.

“Two hundred is an outrageous number of amendments,” he said.

The bill’s third and final consideration by the chamber is expected to occur Tuesday, according to James. That process could end up taking weeks or months, and depending on possible amendments could result in the legislation being returned to the Senate for another vote there.

State Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-10th, who said he was a supporter of medical legalization, said he remained skeptical about the bill’s final path through the Legislature.

“We have been told this bill is expected to run sometime in the near future, but we have heard this before,” Gibbons said.