|
|
| Penalty Compromise May Save Medical Marijuana Bill |
|
Posted by FoM on March 25, 2002 at 20:41:43 PT By Douglas Tallman, News-Post Staff Source: Fredrick News-Post 
The chief sponsor of an effort to legalize marijuana use for the terminally ill on Sunday hailed a compromise bill that would assure pot-smoking cancer patients wouldn't go to jail. "While we didn't find a cure for cancer we sure found a way to scratch the itch," said Delegate Donald Murphy, R-Baltimore County.For more than two years, Mr. Murphy has been fighting for legislation that would allow people suffering from cancer, AIDS and certain other diseases to grow and use marijuana without fear of arrest. He's never been able to get the bill out of his own House Judiciary Committee. Then, momentum seemed to be building Friday when former opponents on the panel announced they were changing their mind during an emotional committee meeting. But before the panel could express its affirmation, Delegate Joseph Vallario, the Prince George's County Democrat who leads the committee, announced no vote would be taken. Mr. Vallario angrily told his committee that he would not be a party of an effort to pass a state law that would be contrary to federal statute. He then ordered a number of lawmakers into his office for a 15-minute closed-door session. The result of that session, Mr. Murphy said, is that the bill now reads that in prosecutions for possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia, defendants can introduce evidence of medical necessity and judges are required to consider it. In cases where medical necessity is proven, the maximum penalty is a fine not to exceed $100, Mr. Murphy said. "The point is nobody's going to jail," he said. In a committee vote Saturday, the bill passed 14-4, setting up a preliminary vote on the floor of the House of Delegates this week. "As amended this bill should get 141 votes," Mr. Murphy said, with more than a trace of confidence. The House has 141 members. "I have not found one person, in 2 1/2 years of following this, who thinks cancer patients and AIDS patients, following their doctor's orders, should go to jail," Mr. Murphy said. Mr. Murphy introduced the bill at the request of a friend, Darrell Putman, a conservative anti-drug Vietnam veteran, who was fighting lymphoma. Mr. Putman reluctantly turned to marijuana to fight pain, nausea and loss of appetite from his chemotherapy treatments. But by smoking marijuana, he put his family and his business at risk — he drove horse-drawn carriages in Frederick — if he were prosecuted. So he turned to Mr. Murphy for help changing the law. Mr. Putman died before he could testify in favor of the bill when it was first introduced in the 2000 General Assembly session. Among the co-sponsors of the bill are Delegates Louise Snodgrass and David Brinkley, Frederick County Republicans and both cancer survivors. Source: Fredrick News-Post (MD) Related Articles & Web Sites: Marijuana Policy Project Penalty for Medical Marijuana Use Capped No Vote for Marijuana Bill Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 26, 2002 at 07:10:34 PT:
|
| Cannabis most certainly does lower intraocular pressure. Please go to PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ and plug in glaucoma and cannabis. You will see pros and cons. If you would like to E-mail me, tonight I will send you a diagram that clearly shows the effect. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by freddybigbee on March 26, 2002 at 06:21:51 PT:
|
| In my home-state of Maine, medical cannabis is theoretically legal for a variety of illnesses, including elevated intra-ocular pressure associated with glaucoma, with which I was recently diagnosed. My opthalmologist told me that it was practically inevitable that I would eventually need to use eye-drops daily to lower intra-ocular pressure(IOP), the only non-surgical means to avoid damage to the optic nerve leading to blindness. The rub is, you must not only have documentation of your diagnosis, but the recommendation of your physician in order to legally use cannabis. My opthalmologist insists that cannabis has not been proven to lower IOP, so refuses to recommend it. I sympathise with his unspoken fear of DEA reprisal, notwithstanding the permanent injunction in the ninth-circuit, but I am deathly afraid of the systemic side-effects of long-term synthetic drugs delivered into my eye-balls. Can anyone provide references that help me "prove" to my doctor that cannabis lowers IOP? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |