|
|
| Vote Needed Change To Medicinal Pot Law |
|
Posted by FoM on March 21, 2002 at 19:16:44 PT Commentary Source: Connecticut Post 
Cut some desperate, dying Connecticut folks a little slack. Ease their pain. Prevent them from being criminals. Fix the irrational kink in our state medicinal marijuana law that in reality forbids them use of this drug under the care of a doctor. Common human decency demands it. The General Assembly's Judiciary Committee has until Monday to act upon a bill sponsored by state Rep. James Abrams, D-Meriden, in an attempt to bring reason and compassion to law. Abrams' bill would allow patients who have physician approval to grow a small amount of marijuana indoors. Solid scientific research shows that the herb's primary psychotropic ingredient has an array of beneficial medical effects, especially for patients enduring chemotherapy treatments for cancer. It relieves pain and, more important, counteracts the nausea that prevents chemo patients from eating enough. Weakness and weight loss from lack of food is a major, sometimes life-threatening complication. This bill died in committee last year. Members should make sure it gets to the floor this session. Then they should pass it. What makes this cruel little battle in America's surreal "war on drugs" really special is the fact that since 1983 state law has allowed doctors to prescribe pot. No kidding. The only catch is, no doctors do. That law would not protect them from federal arrest, a fear reinforced last May when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected state recognition of medical need for marijuana as a defense in federal court. Opponents who claim this act of compassion would be a major breach in the drug war should get a grip on reality. Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency admits, conservatively, that pot is about 98 percent legal in this country. It may be our second largest cash crop. Anybody who wants it can get it, if they are willing to break a law they know has almost zero chance of leading to arrest unless they are dealing in tonnage, if even then. The hundred million and more Americans who don't smoke pot don't smoke it because they don't want to, not because they fear the law. Any chemo patient who wants pot can get it illegally without risk of arrest. They're only at risk if they try to get it legally, under the care of a physician. That is dangerous as well as mean. What the potheads don't want to admit about this plant that is not nearly as benign as they try to claim, is street dealers aren't exactly abiding by the Pure Food and Drug Act. Those who buy street pot have no idea what they are getting, where it's been or what's on it. That may not be fatal for the average healthy pothead, but it could be fatal for someone with a weakened immune system, say from AIDS or chemotherapy. Experts contend smoking, at this time, is the most efficacious means of administering the drug. That's hard to believe, but until a useable pill hits pharmacy shelves, we're stuck with puffing. Commercial growers are ignoring tough federal and state laws now anyway. They ignore ruthless, violent competitors. They have to do a lot of hard labor over long, odd hours. To think terribly sick people would get into the business of growing pot just because they got notes from their doctors is ludicrous. Pass this law, Connecticut. Show a little compassion and a lot of common sense. Source: Connecticut Post (CT) Medical Marijuana Information Links State Talks Marijuana - Connecticut Post CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on March 22, 2002 at 10:22:38 PT |
| comment#5 link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A158-2002Mar21.html [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on March 22, 2002 at 10:20:59 PT |
The Bush administration yesterday proposed changing some of the federal rules designed to protect the confidentiality of Americans' medical records, including the ability of patients to decide in advance who should be able to use their personal health information. The proposal would alter a federal safeguard, adopted by the Clinton administration, that compels patients to give written permission before their records may be disclosed to doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and insurance companies. The new version would erase that requirement and, instead, say that patients must at some point be notified of their privacy rights by those who use their records. In other changes that would loosen privacy rules, the administration wants to enable more parents to find out what medical services their teenagers seek and make it easier for researchers to gain access to patients' records. In addition, business associates of various health care providers would be given more time before they have to follow the confidentiality rules. (snip) The new version was largely criticized by privacy advocates, physicians and Democratic leaders on health care. But it was hailed by the insurance industry. "It's a major step toward creating a workable rule," said Karen Ignagni, president of the American Association of Health Plans. She and other insurance representatives, however, contended that the administration should go further to ease regulatory costs and give the industry adequate time to adapt to the rules. Administration officials said they will allow a relatively quick, one-month period for outside comment on its proposal, before HHS administrators begin to refine it and issue a final version. It does not require congressional approval. (snip) In another contentious change, the administration's proposal would make it easier than Clinton intended for parents to see their children's medical records in any state that does not have a law that specifically guarantees minors their medical privacy rights. Privacy advocates said that change would deter teenagers from seeking sensitive health services, such as abortions or treatment for mental illnesses or sexually transmitted diseases. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by dddd on March 22, 2002 at 10:10:08 PT |
| ..no one wants to take credit for writing this article......we can tell a few things about the writer when we read;"
What the potheads don't want to admit about this plant that is not nearly as benign as they try to claim, is street dealers
aren't exactly abiding by the Pure Food and Drug Act. Those who buy street pot have no idea what they are getting, where it's been or what's on it. That may not be fatal for the average healthy pothead, but it could be fatal for someone with a weakened immune system, say from AIDS or chemotherapy.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Jose Melendez on March 22, 2002 at 09:52:44 PT |
| From: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n522/a08.html?10703
WHY JEB'S DAUGHTER?
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by bruce42 on March 22, 2002 at 06:15:49 PT |
| we're just cruisin along in this article, then suddenly: "What the potheads don't want to admit about this plant that is not nearly as benign as they try to claim, is street dealers aren't exactly abiding by the Pure Food and Drug Act. Those who buy street pot have no idea what they are getting, where it's been or what's on it. That may not be fatal for the average healthy pothead, but it could be fatal for someone with a weakened immune system, say from AIDS or chemotherapy. Experts contend smoking, at this time, is the most efficacious means of administering the drug. That's hard to believe, but until a useable pill hits pharmacy shelves, we're stuck with puffing." These last few bits just seemed kinda out of place... or is it just me? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by DdC on March 21, 2002 at 21:51:24 PT |
| don't block up the hall, and admit that the waters around you have grown and accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone for the loser now will be later to win and there's no tellin' who that it's namin'... it'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls for the times they are a-changin'... Physicians should do no harm... Conant v. McCaffrey Declaration of Arnold Leff, M.D. Conant v. McCaffrey 73 groups for medical cannabis. Doctors Organization Scales Back Proposal [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |
