Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  House Passes Medicinal Marijuana
Posted by FoM on March 15, 2002 at 18:26:02 PT
By Tracy Schmaler, Vermont Press Bureau  
Source: Times Argus 

medical The House gave preliminary approval Thursday to a bill that would bring Vermont in line with eight other states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. After four hours of emotional debate that saw more than one lawmaker break down in tears, the Republican-controlled House approved the controversial bill, 81-53.

Lawmakers split on the issue with those supporting it viewing the measure as a mechanism to offer seriously ill patients another option in trying to ease their pain.

Opponents worried that it would set the stage to legalize marijuana in the state and questioned whether the committee responsible for the bill took enough testimony from physicians and others who dispute the effectiveness of the drug.

The bill would allow the cultivation and use of marijuana by seriously ill patients, as long as they obtain a certificate from their physician. The measure limits the amount a person can possess for this purpose to 3 ounces of usable marijuana, three mature plants or four immature plants.

Supporters of the bill attributed its approval to the heartrending stories from lawmakers of all political stripes who offered examples of friends, relatives and loved ones who could have benefited from the drug while enduring agonizing deaths.

“I really think it was the personal stories,” said Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, the chief sponsor of the bill.

Rep. Warren Kitzmiller, D-Montpelier, shared a story about his wife, Karen, whose seat in the House he took last year when she died of breast cancer. Kitzmiller re-called how a family friend, a doctor, appeared at their home one evening with a canister of marijuana to help Kitzmiller deal with her pain from the disease.

Kitzmiller said his wife’s pain was not so severe, but told his colleagues he was touched by the risk his friend took as a doctor to suggest the treatment.

“We all know this subject has been the butt of many jokes in the hallways ... but I want all members of this House to understand that for all the people in this situation, it is not funny at all,” he said. “I can forgive the jokes ... but underneath it all, it’s not a funny subject, it’s terribly painful. This is an issue of compassion for their suffering.”

Some lawmakers did show signs of flippancy by wearing sunglasses during the debate on the floor.

Opponents of the bill worried that the proposal would open the door to legalization and send a dangerous message to young people in the state about the use of drugs.

“The real issue here is to get the foot in the door on legalizing marijuana,” contended Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland, who supported a move to send the bill to the Health and Welfare Committee, where it was promised to hang on the wall until the session was over.

DePoy said he was concerned that the medicinal purposes of the drug were not well vetted during the hearings in the Judiciary Committee and wanted the bill to go to the Health and Welfare Committee, of which he is vice chairman.

The House voted not to send it to the other committee.

Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee, said her panel did not try to answer the question of whether the drug was more effective for nausea than others that can be prescribed by a physician now.

Rather, she said, committee members were attempting to make it possible for those physicians and patients who believe marijuana to be a helpful treatment to have that option.

“If doctors do not think it’s medically indicated, then they won’t prescribe it,” she said.

Supporters of the measure called it the toughest in the country, by adding further restrictions that the plant be grown indoors in a secure building or room, and by limiting to one the number of caregivers allowed to purchase it or grow it for any patient.

The bill also sets up a database of those who have permission from their physicians by requiring the doctors to file a copy of the certification with the state Department of Public Safety so police can verify that information.

“I think it shows some and, boy, I hate this term, compassionate conservatism,” Flory said.

Not everyone who spoke about a personal experience supported the bill.

Rep. Linda Kirker, R-Essex, said she had watched loved ones die, but still could not support the bill.

“It doesn’t mean we are not compassionate people,” she said.

The bill is scheduled for a final vote today, during which some amendments are expected, including one that inserts a sunset on the measure and allows for some status report to the Legislature.

The future of the bill is uncertain. Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, has said he supports the proposal and other Senate leaders have said they are open to the debate.

The measure does have one strong opponent — Democratic Gov. Howard Dean.

Dean evaded questions about whether he would veto the bill if it arrived on his desk. He has been an ardent opponent and, when questioned Thursday, he suggested he would try to avoid having to veto it.

Source: Times Argus (VT)
Author: Tracy Schmaler, Vermont Press Bureau
Published: Friday, March 15, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Times Argus
Contact: info@timesargus.com
Website: http://timesargus.nybor.com/

Related Articles & Web Sites:

Marijuana Policy Project
http://www.mpp.org/

Medical Marijuana Information Links
http://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm

House Poised to Approve Medical Marijuana
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12250.shtml

House To Take Up Medical Marijuana Bill
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12243.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on March 18, 2002 at 08:32:53 PT:

A question of priorities
"Kitzmiller said his wife’s pain was not so severe, but told his colleagues he was touched by the risk his friend took as a doctor to suggest the treatment. “We all know this subject has been the butt of many jokes in the hallways ... but I want all members of this House to understand that for all the people in this situation, it is not funny at all,” he said. “I can forgive the jokes ... but underneath it all, it’s not a funny subject, it’s terribly painful. This is an issue of compassion for their suffering.”

There it is. In black and white. The reason why we fight.

And here is another:

Not everyone who spoke about a personal experience supported the bill. Rep. Linda Kirker, R-Essex, said she had watched loved ones die, but still could not support the bill. “It doesn’t mean we are not compassionate people,” she said.

I, on the other hand, have no trouble at all calling a spade a spade, rather than a mutlipurpose entrenching tool. The "R" says it all, denoting slavish devotion to ideals best encompassed by the words "Social Darwinism" which seems to be a hallmark of Republican policies.

I have no doubt that people like Ms. Kirker see themselves as 'Horatio on the bridge', saving civilization from the unwashed horde of drooling, red-eyed potheads seeking to corrupt their children. True Bennettistas, they will fight to their last Hispanic or Black child to prevent their own children, 'safe' behind gated communities, from ever smelling the evil herb.

But have a care, Ms. Kirker; smelled any odd odors coming from Johnnie and Suzy's bedroom? An overreliance upon air fresheners in your nice, clean, middle-class house? The problem is much closer than you think...and unless you deal with it, sensibly, it will get worse. You might even find your home confiscated as part of your beloved DrugWar.

Which would only serve such a stone-faced, cold-hearted 'female dog' who stood by and allowed suffering people to die with no relief of their pain...all for your sick, twisted ideology.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #17 posted by goneposthole on March 17, 2002 at 08:56:49 PT
Blind Pig
"The Blind Pig"

A name of a liquor establishment.

A blind pig is a place where one can by illegal substances.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #16 posted by mayan on March 17, 2002 at 06:57:19 PT
A**holes
Perhaps they should wear "Depends" because they are so full of sh*t.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #15 posted by goneposthole on March 17, 2002 at 06:48:22 PT
sunglasses
Blind pigs wear sunglasses.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #14 posted by bruce42 on March 16, 2002 at 23:49:44 PT
stereotype
Pot smoking = red eyes = sunglasses to hide them.

These people in their "clever" ploy have simply managed to display their ignorance and lack of respect.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #13 posted by E_Johnson on March 16, 2002 at 14:05:22 PT
Sunglasses? I don't get it
What's that supposed to mean, that they wore sunglasses on the floor?

Is that some Vermont code for something?

What does it have to do with marijuana?



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #12 posted by Jose Melendez on March 16, 2002 at 13:50:09 PT:

From another article on this story
oops, please delete #11, it contains errors that some might consider to subliminal.. :)

from:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n476/a07.html?397

"What kind of message is this we're sending to our children and, as far as that goes, to the United States?" said Rep. Loren Shaw, R- Derby. "We're lawmakers and we're supposed to be making the law, not breaking the law. And here we are breaking federal law."

Think about the message you sent to kids by just saying "no"...

  • "No" to marijuana, even though it is the safest mind altering herb known to man.
  • "No" to treating violence offences even half as severely than drug possession.
  • "No" to the truth.

Marijuana Prohibition is about fat paychecks for beaurocrats and easy votes for politicians who disingenuously accept their largest campaign contributions from poison manufacturers and billion dollar industries such as big Tobacco, Oil, Prison, Pharmaceutical even Pesticide. (Can you say, "DyingCorp?")

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 16, 2002 at 13:02:23 PT
Ricardo
Thank you. I sure will try to keep them coming. Weekends are slow but I've found the weekend gives me time to catch up on reading the news and reflect on our progress. Very interesting times these days.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #9 posted by Ricardo on March 16, 2002 at 11:44:08 PT
Nice article, keep them coming
Just wanted to say, thanks. Thanks, for the articles you continue to share, they're great.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by el_toonces on March 16, 2002 at 10:04:05 PT:

Thanks..
Jose and Puff Tuff!

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on March 16, 2002 at 09:17:54 PT:

contact Linda Kirker
Linda Kirker, R-Essex Junction

mailto:lkirker@leg.state.vt.us

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on March 16, 2002 at 08:58:17 PT:

JAMA
Thank puff_tuff
from:
http://cannabisnews.com/news/12/thread12160.shtml#13

This is the study that JAMA published

Cognitive Functioning of Long-term Heavy Cannabis Users Seeking Treatment

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n9/abs/joc11416.html

and this is the JAMA Editorial shredding the study

Cannabis, Cognition, and Residual Confounding http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n9/ffull/jed20003.html

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by el_toonces on March 16, 2002 at 07:29:03 PT:

JAMA article, editorial, and funding
Has anyone been able to get their "hands on" an online or digital copy of the recent piece in JAMA claiming cognitive deficits from chronic cannabis use or the editorial about the article? Also, since many folks have referred to the JAMA piece when offering their "reservations" about MJ, it would be nice to track down how the research(ers) were financed (bought?).

Please let me know by e-mail or otherwise if you have seen either piece I am looking for ONLINE or know anything about the funding or how we might track that down.

Thanks,

El

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by el_toonces on March 16, 2002 at 07:24:37 PT:

Sending a message?
Why do the anti's always oppose medical MJ on the grounds that it would "send the wrong message to our children(s)" [plural here is for dyslexic Republicans and illiterate criminables:)]? I can only venture a guess that it's because they know the buck passing ("we'll let science decide," they say as they go about suppressing the science or misrepresenting the scientific data amassed to date) or outright lies they use about "NO medical usefulness" are now likely to get them called to the carpet as Assa found out in San Fran recently.

So, what is the "wrong" message children might get from a mere but desperately needed honest re-scheduling as even the DEA's own administrative law judge recommended? Beats me. Every kid I know seems to be able to grasp that morphine (a schedule II drug at the moment) is BOTH a pain relieving therapeutic drug with legitimate uses AND a drug that can be abused by people looking to get stoned rather than use to relieve pain. Thus, the anti's are hard-pressed to make this "send the wrong message" crap into convincing polemic.

If the anti's think our children are too stupid or young to comprehend this, maybe they better re-assess all the "messages" that get sent out when 25% of students in some schools are gulping down Adderall, Ritalin or other Schedule II stimulants. Doesn't this "duality" bother the anti's, especially as it necessitates a much more comprehensive and nuanced view about drugs and the very idea of changing one's own consciousness than the anti's like in their simple messages? But, if the messages MUST be considered in such black and white light, aren't our existing policies pretty much sending the message that soft drugs are bad and have no redeeming medical value, ever, whereas hard drugs, so long as they are in pill form, are good because they have medical uses?

These anti's -- good for a laugh every day. And since I "came out" to my docs, the anti's don't get under my skin they way used to. I think, though, they are so cognitively impaired that by now the only way we will reach them and their "followers" in the general population is by winning their hearts, as their minds are already gone. FoM is 1,000% right on this one, as this article demonstrates. Making it socially taboo and potentially the first element of conspiracy charge to even discuss using MJ medically -- as our current laws do -- means the issue, by the terms set by our opponents, is not rationally debatable and thus most folks opinions are left to personal experiences with friends or family who might need and benefit from MJ. So, the dialectic must be personal if we are to prevail.

I predict that means we will see, if we press our case right, a lot of MJ patients coming out to their docs. Outing myself as medical MJ patient was worth the price of admission alone because I now know which of my docs value my health and well-being over their certificates (not the educational decorations so much as their licenses, i.e., ability to earn a living) and which fit into the other category, i.e., are more interested in my insurance bennies and the state's permission to practice over their "art" or vocation than my well-being.

I think a lot more patients would come out if they did not have to worry about acquiring a potential life time label as a "cannabis abuser" (or worse yet, dependent), losing their relationship to their doc and the medicines they need, and knew they had every available legal protection. If Patients Out of Time doesn't already have a paperwork "kit" for coming out to your doc while retaining every possible legal and privacy protection you have, perhaps it might be good idea for me or someone else to create a proposed kit for their consideration? I would appreciate any opinions y'all have on this issue.

Be well and enjoy this weekend,

El

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on March 16, 2002 at 01:31:31 PT
Why would one hate?
“I think it shows some and, boy, I hate this term, compassionate conservatism,” Flory said

Would you rather stick a knife in someone's back saying you are compassionate?

That goes for Kirker who have seen loved ones suffered in pain.

I am curious, did she really say to the loved ones, "Sorry, but it is the LAW?"

Gish!

ff

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by bruce42 on March 16, 2002 at 00:11:36 PT
about compassion
com·pas·sion - n. Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. See Synonyms at pity.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"It doesn't mean we are not compassionate people," referring to the opposition of the bill to legalize medical marijuana.

Technically, goneposthole is quite correct- by not taking action to relieve the suffering of others you are not showing compassion toward those people. Feeling sorry for someone and showing compassion toward them are not the same.

And this: "Some lawmakers did show signs of flippancy by wearing sunglasses during the debate on the floor."

One of the first things I learned about debate is that the listener should always, I mean always, show respect to the speaker- no matter your opinion, no matter your political alliances or agendas, no matter your feelings. These people should be ashamed.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on March 15, 2002 at 19:35:33 PT
Linda Kirker
"It doesn't mean we are not compassionate people," referring to the opposition of the bill to legalize medical marijuana.

Sorry to disagree. Yes it does mean you are not compassionate.

Opponents will never have enough testimony or evidence to support medical marijuana.

They are not compassionate, just pigheaded.

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 15, 2002 at 18:26:02