cannabisnews.com: N.M. Lawmakers Push To Change Drug Laws










  N.M. Lawmakers Push To Change Drug Laws

Posted by FoM on January 08, 2002 at 22:09:59 PT
The Associated Press contributed to this report 
Source: FoxNews.com 

Following the lead of a governor who has campaigned across the country in support of reforming marijuana restrictions, New Mexico lawmakers trying to change the state's drug laws said Tuesday they have a good chance at passing their agenda this year. "I think there's a different temperament from last year," state Sen. Roman Maes, D-Santa Fe, said. Six bills are on the docket as state lawmakers return to the capital for their latest session. 
The bills, which will be introduced as a package, would allow the use of marijuana for critically ill people; give judges discretion in sentencing; allow fines instead of jail for people possessing an ounce or less of marijuana; reform civil forfeiture laws; allow treatment instead of jail for nonviolent drug offenders; and make offenders who have served their sentences eligible for federal assistance such as food stamps. The measures will save money, help families and put people into treatment rather than jail, the sponsors say. In order for the bills to have a chance, Maes said, Republican Gov. Gary Johnson, the main supporter of more liberal drug laws, must clearly state that he's willing to put more money into treatment. Rep. Joe Thompson, R-Albuquerque, said he has hopes for the package because his colleagues have had a year to study the issues and many voted for similar legislation last year "without the sky falling on them." "We have a little bit more of an edge than we had in years past," he said. But New Mexico may have no greater chance than California in allowing terminally ill persons to use marijuana for treatment. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter, saying that state laws cannot protect medical marijuana users from federal prosecutions.To emphasize its commitment to the law, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency has recently busted several medical marijuana distributors in California, leading supporters to cry foul. California passed its medical marijuana law by referendum in 1996 and has since been followed by seven other states. Nevertheless, New Mexico lawmakers said their constituents — even those who don't agree — are happy the issue is being discussed. Discussions are raising the issue's profile among constituents, Maes said, and "as a result, they're starting to realize the repercussions. You'd be surprised at the number of families contacting their legislators. ... Before it was just a shutdown, 'We don't want to talk about it.'"Maes said his views have been well-publicized, but "not one person has come up to me and said it's foolish, it's foolhardy, don't do that. ... Right now people are looking for opportunities to basically help some of their family members." Despite his solidarity with the marijuana law reform movement, Gov. Johnson wants the 2002 session to spend $20 million to expand state prisons, a measure that may run smack against his supporters' agenda."If I have anything to say about it, I'm going to divert that money, that new money, into treatment programs," Maes said. "We have no business putting more money into prisons. We have more than enough prison facilities; we need treatment." Rep. Gail Beam, D-Albuquerque, said it's time New Mexico reallocated money from jail to treatment — particularly since the state faces difficult financial times. "I'm particularly interested in avoiding the costs that are skyrocketing in respect to our prison population and keeping prison for more violent offenders," said Beam, who will sponsor the measure for fines rather than jail for possessing small amounts of marijuana. On Monday, a new anti-drug group urged lawmakers not to liberalize the laws. Protect New Mexico contends easing drug laws will make New Mexico a haven for drug users and charges that pro-legalization forces are using "misleading terminology like 'harm reduction' to hide their fundamental goal — legalizing drugs." Rep. Rob Burpo of Albuquerque, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, used an Albuquerque elementary school as a backdrop to announce Tuesday he would oppose efforts to liberalize drug laws. "Regardless of the semantics, to decriminalize is to legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin and that is absolutely wrong," he said. Newshawk: Henry B.Source: FoxNews.comPublished: Tuesday, January 08, 2002Copyright: Fox News Network, LLC 2002 Contact: comments foxnews.com Website: http://www.foxnews.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Governor Gary Johnson's Home Pagehttp://www.governor.state.nm.us/NM Governor Looking To Leave His Mark http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11693.shtmlAdvocates Gear Up for Drug-Reform Pushhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11690.shtmlGary Johnson's Visit to the Drug Policy Forumhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11555.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #14 posted by SWAMPIE on January 13, 2002 at 02:27:58 PT
BIG WORDS...dddd.....
Here's a real big one for ya!FLOCCINOCCINIHILIPILIFICATION...It means"to always deem things or others as worthless" It was used by a senator at one time in a speech.Does this mean that our fine DEA-sponsored Gov't-NAZIS' are a bunch of "FLOCCINOCCINIHILIPILIFICATORS"? Or are they just a bunch of "Anal-Retentive FORNICATORS"??? Time to fill the bongalator.....SWAMPIE
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 09, 2002 at 13:13:07 PT
dddd
Two words. You're cool! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by dddd on January 09, 2002 at 12:34:22 PT
big words
....big words are just that,,,big words.....small words are more important...without small words,it would be impossible to describe the meaning of big words.......dX4......quadra-D......dual tandem D......twin double ds. .single d plus three.......five ds,minus one........a couple of Ds with two more........a hundred and seven Ds minus a hundred and three.........
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 09, 2002 at 12:02:48 PT

Thanks dddd
I don't know big words. I'm just a simple kind of newsie person I suppose. I'll keep reading and learning. Thanks again!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by dddd on January 09, 2002 at 11:36:20 PT

....Esoteric....
...designed for or understood only by the specially initiated.....private....secret.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 09, 2002 at 10:55:06 PT

Esoterica
We sure are getting that way. I'm cool. I don't know what that word means. LOL! I thought I should mention I can't find anymore news but will keep looking. The news use to be available earlier in the day but it seems to be getting later in the day these days. My feeling about natural versus synthetic medicine is natural medicine is as old as time itself and modern day synthetic drugs haven't been around long enough to prove they are as good as natural.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 09, 2002 at 09:58:50 PT:

Esoterica
Now we're getting really esoteric. THC is one of the stickiest molecules in existence. It is virtually impossible to get 100% pure. Yes, a chemist can tell the difference because of trace compounds. Marinol will be THC 93% with 2% unspecified impurities, and there will always be traces of sesame oil.GW Pharmaceuticals can produce 97% pure THC with assorted other natural cannabinoids straight from the plant , according to the House of Lords Report (I believe it is in there, or if not, other related documents they have for sale):http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldselect/ldsctech/151/15101.htmWhich should the consumer prefer?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by qqqq on January 09, 2002 at 09:52:02 PT

Thanks again Ethan
..but I am still curious about the difference between synthetic and organic THC,prior to ingestion and metabolization.....for instance,would a chemist be able to tell if a sample of THC was synthetic,or organic,, ,,or,,is synthetic THC totally identical to organic THC?...I realize that this is perhaps,again, a difficult question,and of course it would depend on the purity of the samples/extractions,,but I imagine that there are a number of special,mysterious qualities in organic THC,that could not be mimiced through chemical fabrication.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 09, 2002 at 08:57:28 PT:

THC
Yes, the THC in Marinol metabolizes to the same stuff sought on urine tests, and causes a positive result. Anyone on Marinol should inform their urine-testing employer of this fact.Now, the wrinkle: Natural cannabis contains trace to large amounts of THCV (especially South African, certain Thai, and other strains). It is shorter acting than regular THC and reportedly provides a "clearer" high. Its metabolites can be sought in the urine, and when found, are claimed as proof that the person in question was using cannabis, rather than just taking Marinol, or eating hempseed products. Some court cases have been thrown out because this technology has not been widely accepted, but it is only a matter of time before this is added to the forensic arsenal in attempts to incarcerate even more cannabis users.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by qqqq on January 09, 2002 at 08:22:36 PT

Thank You Ethan
...One question remains,,,Do you know if the synthesized THC is dicernable from organic THC?...I realize this is an akward question,,but it would be no suprize to find out that the supposedly synthetic THC is actually an extraction from the organic source..after all,it would seem that it would be far more expensive to synthesize ,,than to extract. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 09, 2002 at 07:45:09 PT:

Marinol vs. THC
Here are my comments to submitted questions that will appear on marijuanainfo.com:1. Can you give me a definition of THC we could post on the site?THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is a terpenophenolic compound derived from cannabis. It is the main psychoactive component of cannabis, and is produced in glandular trichomes, particularly in the unfertilized female flowering tops of the plant. THC is an extremely sticky liquid at room temperature. It boils at 157 degrees Celsius, which allows its use by smoking or vaporization. THC is not water soluble, but is easily dissolved in lipids or alcohol. THC possesses analgesic (pain relieving), anti-inflammatory, anti-emetic (nausea-preventing), antioxidant, and euphoric effects. THC in cannabis, or naturally extracted, is classified as Schedule I by the DEA, implying that it is dangerous and has no accepted medical use in the USA, not withstanding its historical pharmaceutical applications.2. How is Marinol made? Is it derived directly from cannabis plants or is it manufactured to mimic THC?Marinol, or dronabinol is synthetically manufactured THC dissolved in sesame oil, and is not derived from the plant. Although it is chemically identical to THC from cannabis, Marinol is classified as Schedule III by the DEA, and is a prescribable for nausea after chemotherapy, and as an appetite stimulant in AIDS, as well as for other indications.3. Does the FDA's approval of Marinol indicate or prove marijuana has medical value (without commenting on its risks)?One would assume this based on pure logic, but in repeated legal challenges, the federal government has maintained a clear distinction between natural THC in cannabis (prohibited and considered dangerous), and THC in Marinol (prescribable at a very high cost). Pharmacologically, this is indefensible nonsense. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by qqqq on January 09, 2002 at 07:22:01 PT

Marinol
...I think that Marinol,,is supposedly synthetic THC..I guess no one knows for sure,,after all,who is going to do the lab work to determine whether Marinol is synthesized THC,or a clandestine extraction from prime buds.,,,Is Marinol void of natural/organic THC?.....If a person takes Marinol,do they test positive?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by Dark Star on January 09, 2002 at 07:05:04 PT

Wrong Again
"The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the matter, saying that state laws cannot protect medical marijuana users from federal prosecutions."They did no such thing. That is why this is going back to court. The Supremes did say that the cannabis clubs could not distribute cannabis under a medical necessity defense. The issue of what an individual may do under state law remains at issue. The feds do claim to retain the right to bust their butts for medical use, possession, etc.Keep in mind, though, that this is the same government that claims that THC in the cannabis plant is a dangerous illegal drug with no approved medical use, but is perfectly okay if it is dissolved in sesame oil in a capsule and sold by private industry at an obscene price as Marinol. Go figure. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Jose Melendez on January 09, 2002 at 06:46:33 PT:

Just so kids get the right message...
Rep. Rob Burpo of Albuquerque, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, used an Albuquerque elementary school as a backdrop to announce Tuesday he would oppose efforts to liberalize drug laws. "Regardless of the semantics, to decriminalize is to legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin and that is absolutely wrong," he said. 

Translation: 

Cigarettes are right, alcohol is right; make sure you keep taking your Ritalin, so you can grow up and take Prozac, Zoloft and OxyContin. 

We will never speak out against the legal status of these poisons, because our economy depends on premature deaths. Otherwise, we might have to pay social security benefits to all those people who would live longer and generate less tax revenue, because they grew marijuana instead of buying cigarettes and alcohol.

Arrest Prohibition - Drug War is TREASON
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment