|
|
| Medical Marijuana Clears Senate Hurdle |
|
Posted by FoM on April 26, 2002 at 08:01:00 PT By David Mace, Vermont Press Bureau Source: Rutland Herald 
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee Thursday unanimously endorsed a bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession and use for patients suffering from a variety of illnesses, but prospects for further action on the bill appeared dim. By a 5-0 vote the committee sent the bill back to the full Senate after making a few changes. But committee Chairwoman Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, made it clear to members that theirs wasn’t the final word. Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #20 posted by Dan B on April 27, 2002 at 07:35:48 PT:
|
| Here are my feelings on the matter as of now: because we now have a Republican president, and because most of us know--now more than ever before--how corrupt the right wing can be, I want to throw my support as far from the right as possible, hence to the Greens. Sam Adams, you are absolutely correct: it is not likely that the Greens or the Libertarians would be able to implement their plans fully any time soon, so I may as well support one or the other of the two extremes to establish at least a voice or two of dissent, as the so-called "moderates" (Repubs and Demos) are so busy screwing up the world that neither of them qualifies to run anything. (In actuality, the so-called "moderates" are the most extreme of the four parties mentioned--and the most destructive). So, thanks for the wake-up, Sam Adams. Sometimes I get so concerned about doing the right thing that I can't see the best option right in front of me. No matter what, the Republicrats and Democans need to go, and the best way to get them out of office is to vote in some people from a third party. El toonces, I think both parties stink, but if I had to choose between the two I'd have to go with the Demos. That's probably just a reaction to the current regime, though. There are Republicans and Democrats that share our views on the drug war, but very few in either party are acting on it. Those who do are labeled wackos, much like Cynthia McKinney has been labeled for suggesting that we actually investigate 9-11. I guess I have to return to the third party as the most viable option, and right now I'm leaning toward the Greens. The only problem? I don't see that the Greens are any more organized than the Democrats. I guess it may come down to choosing a Green here, a Libertarian there--but very judiciously, not haphazard. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #19 posted by el_toonces on April 26, 2002 at 21:38:27 PT:
|
| ...Dan, I share you agony in having to choose amongst the most minor offender of true freedom in terms of parties. So, if we accept the two party system limitation, where do you think the best shot lies -- with the libertarian minded Repubs (the Nixon to china sort of thing) or with the nanny-state liberals (who would "take care" of us by at least allowing medical use, free no doubt!)? I am most interested in your thoughts on this, and am just about finished replying privately to your kind e-mail. El [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by Sam Adams on April 26, 2002 at 21:37:32 PT |
| There is SOME progress here. At least progress has been made in making OPPOSITION to med MJ a political liability - note that the health care committee passed this, basically saying "hell, I don't want to be on the record for opposing this, so I'll approve it and pass it to the LEO thugs to kill it instead". I guess that's the silver lining if there is one. If it was up to me, I would urge the sponsors to hang things up for this year. The bill is getting narrower and narrower in focus, soon it will be practically useless. Indoor growth only? That's going to eliminate a lot of people from being able to grow. No Crohn's or glaucoma? Those are terrible diseases that make one violently ill and blind, respectively - we've all read accounts of people whose lives were radically improved by MJ with those diseases. What shall we tell them? Sorry, jail for you - have fun going blind and/or puking your guts out every day. At the very least, it looks like the bill has a damn good chance of passing next year. Which ain't bad for the first year pushing this bill..... Dan B - a lot of people share your objections to the 3rd parties. I usually tell them this - yes, if the Green or Libertarian agenda was fully implemented, things would be a little crazy. Realistically, this will NEVER happen, we know that - right now it would be a HUGE accomplishment to just get one of each in Congress. Conversely, look at what the two "moderate" or "mainstream" parties have done with their more palatable platforms. They've given us a government completely ruled by the petrochemical industry and other corporate giants. The government is completely ruled by money - those without money have ZERO chance of taking a govt leadership position. Even though we rebuilt Europe completely after it was bombed flat in WWII, we can't even fix a few ghetto's around our own country, after 100 years of "trying". California has built 22 new prisons since the last new branch of the state university system (hint: they serve the same constituency - young men). We're plunging headlong toward a complete militaristic state, this year our military spending will equal that of the next closest 15 countries's spending COMBINED - and our biggest enemies right now are a band of 2000 ragtag guerillas, and a couple of mad dictators who preside over starving, primitive people. We are rapidly warming the Earth's climate, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is now greater than it's EVER been in the last 6 million years! (they know this from ice cores). The polar caps are now melting, and December-Jan-Feb was the warmest winter since records were kept in 1880 - all of the 10 hottest years on record are since 1990. Despite this, our leadership subsidizes the energy companies using 50-100 year old technology (coal & oil) while cutting research into alternative energy. And, to top it all off, after a deadly terrorist attack, they continue to devote MASSIVE resources to sending thugs to arrest 700,000 people a year for a harmless PLANT. The pace of civil liberties crumbling is rapidly accelerating. So you tell me, how can the situation POSSIBLY get any worse by having a few Libertarians and Greens expressing their views in local and national politics? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by Robbie on April 26, 2002 at 18:42:45 PT |
| but I think that is essentially it. Definitely not government interference. Well... :-) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by dddd on April 26, 2002 at 17:05:26 PT |
| ..So Paul merely needs to reconfigure his internet thing,,or HTML ????..dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by Robbie on April 26, 2002 at 16:56:14 PT |
| That's HTML speak for denying access to an IP address from a local machine. The site paul listed can be accessible on the internet, but the local permissions have not been properly set-up yet. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by dddd on April 26, 2002 at 16:32:05 PT |
| ....I hope I'm not alone in finding the extremely disturbing!...Are we to assume that the 'authorities',,the fbi,,or whoever,,have the ability to forbid a website on the entire internet?...If so,,that would mean they have the capacity,,to filter everything!.............all this will be covered in my new unfinished book titled,"Are You Shitting Your Pants Yet?"....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by Jose Melendez on April 26, 2002 at 16:16:25 PT |
| Forbidden. Sure you don't need me to mirror your site? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by FoM on April 26, 2002 at 16:06:28 PT |
| So did I. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by dddd on April 26, 2002 at 15:56:43 PT |
| ..I tried the link to your site,,and I got a "Forbidden",message.......spooky...dddd [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #10 posted by paulpeterson on April 26, 2002 at 14:51:16 PT:
|
| You all remember the flack a long time ago, back in March, 2002? No, that wasn't the good old days, just the opposite. Remember when that ASA guy took his federal pension and put it on the line, when he used the power and bully pulpit of his office, to send that letter to those Maryland legislators and told them flat out point blank if they gave rights to medical users of pot that he would BUST THEM UNDER FEDERAL LAW? He broke the law, he did, I think, that is, you remember the law, they call it the constitution or something? The one that says we have this "checks and balances thingy?" The one that says that we have a "separation of powers?" So who is he telling a state legislature what the federal government will do, in advance, if the state legislature goes and makes a valid state legislative act? And then remember, later, when he told congress just a few weeks ago, right here in the month of April, 2002, that the DEA is here to "monitor state legislative action" so that he can ensure that he "combats marijuana legilization!" I submit that that breaks the law as follows: 1) He can say he wants to "combat" illegal drug use, etc. all he wants. 2) He can say that he wants to "discourage" legalization (or would that be going too far-showing partisanship and politicizing his own executive branch position?) 3) but he certainly can't go around saying that he wants to "combat" valid legislative efforts-that would be discouraging first amendment freedoms of a) speech, b) political speech & action, you know, like letting legislators know in advance that if they even met on an issue-watch out (the commies would round people up for even congregating in whispers-yes, we have come a long way ladies). WELL, HERE'S THE POINT-YOU GUYS IN VERMONT, GO AHEAD AND PASS YOUR BILL, PAULY SAID SO, OK? GO AHEAD AND SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY-ASA CAN'T JUST CHILL YOUR SPEECH, HE CAN'T JUST STOP PROGRESS, NOT THAT EASY, NO WAY. BY THE TIME YOUR BILL IS DRY, WE'LL HAVE SOME NEW STUFF GOING ON ABOUT ASA THAT WILL CHILL HIS SPIRIT. I'M THINKIN THAT THE 9TH CIRCUIT IS GOING TO TELL ASA TO BACK OFF, TO STOP SCARING DOCTORS AWAY, THAT'S WHAT. I'M THINKIN THAT WHEN THAT CASE COMES DOWN, I'M GOING TO GET ILLINOIS DOCTORS TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE ANOTHER STATE TO THE BUNCH OF 8, AND THEN WHEN VERMONT GETS THEIR BILL IN, THEN WE'RE 10, THEN WE WILL HAVE THIS MOMENTUM GOING ON, AND THEN THEY WILL LET YOU'SE GUYS IN VERMONT GO AHEAD AND DO YOUR DISTRIBUTION THING, BECAUSE THEY (THE DEA) WILL GET TIRED OF LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS TELLING THE DEA TO BUZZ OFF (LIKE SF ALREADY DOES, AND BERKELEY JUST TOLD THEM NOW). And by the way, I got my web site back up (at least until yesterday, today I'm told I am "not authorized" to go there or something. I told the FBI to find out who took away my First Amendment Freedoms, and I thought they were going to investigate these things. I had my trial this week (to lose or get my law license back), so I've been a little busy trying to maintain my life. Let me know by email if it's down or up (not that it is that good of a site, really-it's more the IDEA of the FREEDOM of EXPRESSION and speech, really). paulpeterson@illinois-mmi.org. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #9 posted by Dan B on April 26, 2002 at 13:51:29 PT:
|
| This is somewhat off topic, but you'll see the relevance, I hope. For those of us who want real drug policy reform, we have only two choices: the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. Both have their problems. I like the Greens because they are pro-environment, anti-corporate, and anti-drug war. But there is a problem: their policies are inherently socialist. In fact, they are so socialist that I cannot possibly support them. Among other things, they want the government to completely subsidize anyone who does not have a job--no questions asked, period. This means that if I don't want to work, I won't have to. I hope you can see how utterly foolish it would be to pay people to not work--even those who could. On the other hand, we have the Libertarians. Again, I agree with their stance on the drug war, and I wholeheartedly support their desire to get the government out of people's personal freedoms. But I reject their assertion that corporations could be allowed to run amok with no regulation whatsoever, and I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that we do not need a minimum wage. Libertarians are Republicans who want personal freedoms to match corporate freedoms. Since virtually all major corporations have proven themselves unworthy of the public's trust, I cannot go along with the Libertarians. Which brings me to the dilemma: If the Greens are out, and the Libertarians are out, is there any political party that supports personal freedoms, wants an end to the war on drugs, cares about the environment, and is (here's the clincher!) fiscally responsible to both the reality of capitalism and the needs of individual citizens? I don't think such a party exists. So, once again, as with the Republicrats and Democans, I am forced to choose the lesser of two evils. At least the third party evils are less evil than the other two evils. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by el_toonces on April 26, 2002 at 13:30:41 PT:
|
| ....for our local (county level) NORML chapter this year will be to press candidates, esp. those for federal office, for their opinions and positions on these issues, particularly medical ones. Also, we are going to try and get them to PROPERLY poll their potential constituencies about these issues, e.g., asking "should marijuana users be jailed?" as opposed to "should drugs be legalized?" so that the candidates themselves can see the benefits of dropping the "party line" of double talk or outright hostility. I wish more local chapters would take your point home, Dark Star, and at least get their local voters some info on where the candidates really stand. It's a modest and specific project for any NORML chapter. El [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Dark Star on April 26, 2002 at 12:55:10 PT |
| I would like to see a concerted effort to make every candidate for public office go on the record with their position on the War on Drugs, and medical marijuana. I cannot conceive of voting for any candidate that does not support reform. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Robbie on April 26, 2002 at 12:30:00 PT |
| Yes, Howard Dean could be a great hurdle to this legislation, and he does want to run for the Dem presidential nomination. Unfortunately, he will probably act in the prohibitionist manner, and do everything he can to stop it. I have serious doubts that the mainstream of the Democratic party will EVER try to encourage drug law reform. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by mayan on April 26, 2002 at 11:48:42 PT |
| It's time to yank these bozos out of office if they are just going to play their little games. Do they think we are stupid? If Dean is serious about a Presidential run, he would be wise to back a cause which the vast majority of Americans support. This "don't want to appear soft on drugs" excuse just doesn't fly anymore! There is no longer any excuse, as all of the lies have been exposed & now we will hold your feet to the fire! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on April 26, 2002 at 10:51:57 PT |
| sorry FoM, got a bit too excited there [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by Jose Melendez on April 26, 2002 at 10:49:05 PT:
|
| “I don’t want to send the message to them that we’re making one more drug legal,” Sears said. That is a COMPLETE LIE, unless he means the real message is that we're making much more than one drug legal. In my opinion: Drug companies have politicians like him in their back pockets. PROOF, from: The following drugs have been approved this year by the Food and Drug Administration. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by FoM on April 26, 2002 at 10:28:50 PT |
| Here's our article too. Many comments! You must have missed it. Judge Says Some Drug Law are Unconstitutional [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on April 26, 2002 at 10:19:59 PT:
|
| http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=3338&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Medical marijuana users should be exempt, Cadieux says MONTREAL (CP) - Canadian drug laws banning the sale of marijuana to sick people who have been granted permission to use the drug are unconstitutional, a Quebec judge said today. Judge Gilles Cadieux said the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to liberty and security of the person. He suggested such rights include the use of cannabis by patients who have been granted a medical exemption and who can be proven to benefit from using the drug. Cadieux made the statements at the trial of two men charged with drug-trafficking and possession at a non-profit centre that provided marijuana to those suffering from chronic illnesses. It was not clear today what immediate effect the judge's statement in Quebec court would have on the use and sale of medicinal marijuana in Canada. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |