cannabisnews.com: Lawmakers Make Another Bid for Medical Marijuana 










  Lawmakers Make Another Bid for Medical Marijuana 

Posted by FoM on January 30, 2002 at 20:11:19 PT
By Anne Wallace Allen, Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press 

Lawmakers introduced a bill Wednesday that would make marijuana available to seriously ill people who could be helped by it. The measure, which is similar to one introduced in the Vermont House last year, would allow patients with certain disorders to grow marijuana for their own use if they had a statement from their physician saying its potential benefits would likely outweigh its risks. 
The bill would make such users exempt from prosecution, and is similar to measures that have passed in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, said Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, the lead sponsor of the bill. The guidelines in the bill would be similar to the guidelines for prescription drug use, he said. ''You can't smoke it in public; you can't share it with anybody,'' he said. ''It's similar to a prescription drug where you take it on the recommendation of your doctor.'' Last year, Rep. Fred Maslack, R-Poultney, was the lead sponsor of a similar measure that was referred to the House Health and Welfare Committee but never had a hearing. Gov. Howard Dean has been on record for years as a firm opponent of legalizing marijuana in any form, but Zuckerman said he didn't take that into account when he introduced his bill. ''Just because the governor says something isn't good doesn't mean it doesn't have merit,'' he said. ''It should be a decision between a doctor and a patient.'' Zuckerman's bill has strong support from the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, which says 12 states are reviewing similar legislation this year. ''We are pegging Vermont as the state most likely to pass a medical marijuana bill this year,'' said spokesman Bruce Mirken in a prepared statement. In 1996, California became the first state to approve a medical marijuana law. Last May, the U.S. Supreme Court said an Oakland, Calif. group that was distributing marijuana was violating federal drug laws. The high court ruled that the so-called ''medical necessity defense'' was at odds with a 1970 federal law that marijuana, heroin and LSD have no medical benefits and cannot be dispensed or prescribed by doctors. But Justice Clarence Thomas noted that important constitutional questions remained, such as Congress' ability to interfere with intrastate commerce, the right of states to experiment with their own laws and whether Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as a way to be free of pain. Despite the Supreme Court's decision, many marijuana clubs distribute marijuana to the sick in California, and thousands of people grow and smoke marijuana for medical reasons. Source: Associated PressAuthor: Anne Wallace Allen, Associated PressPublished: January 30, 2002Copyright: 2002 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmSome Lawmakers Want Pot Legalized for Sickhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8823.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #8 posted by Dan B on January 31, 2002 at 23:36:38 PT:
Intra/Inter
It is correct that Congress redefined their reasoning behing making cannabis (and other now-illegal drugs) illegal by using the Constitution's interstate commerce laws (commerce between the states), but the Constitution gives Congress no such authority over interstate commerce. The assumption that marijuana must have been grown in another state to have shown up in this state if on its face illogical and contrived, though that never stopped a prohibitionist before. Here's the bottom line: we are no longer living under the U. S. Constitution, and the "representatives" that have been (s)elected--you remember, the ones who pledged to uphold the Constitution--have sold our Constitutional rights to various corporate and criminal entities. The Supreme Court is now the spirit club rooting on the unconstitutional laws passed by the other two branches of government.The executive branch and Congress answer to organized crime, including corporations.Which means that organized crime (including corporations) runs the country. And they're making trillions (with a TR) off prohibition.Welcome to the land of the free!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on January 31, 2002 at 08:06:21 PT
Gov Dean
Fuh-nnyThe governor's preconceived notions were born from complete ignorance, to state the obvious.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on January 31, 2002 at 07:36:07 PT:

Great letter to editor
(Sorry if I posted this twice... FoM keep this one please)I have seen no less than four letters to editors pointing out that several studies show that concerns about marijuana and driving are at least overblown. My complaint is that those studies are too often hidden from the public...
The words in the letter below makes me wonder if some of these letter writers have been reading cannabisnews.com
:)
Luke 12
2There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 3What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. From: OFFICIALS SHOULDN'T CHANGE MARIJUANA 'LOOPHOLE' 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n153/a10.html?397Idaho already has the capability to arrest cannabis users ( "Officials To Fight Marijuana Loophole, Jan. 21, 2002 ), impaired enough to be a danger; why arrest those who present no apparent threat to society? 

International studies show unanimously that cannabis does not impair driving enough to automatically warrant impaired driving penalties. Looked at like a chess game, this move is a loser for the prohibitionist. Adding credibility to America's failing drug laws is detrimental to helping society with drug problems and lowering the incidence of death from drugs. So keep the law the way it is and the message is one of intelligence: If you're impaired, you'll get arrested, if not, not. 

Biblically, medically, recreationally: Too many citizens use cannabis responsibly and are tired of various forms of government discriminatory deceit directed toward them. By extension, there is not enough support for any war on drugs; that includes cannabis. 

Christ God gave us cannabis and put cannabinoid ( THC ) receptor sites in our brains: Why use public taxes to punish citizens for making that connection? 

Stan White, Dillon, Colo. 
I was also wondering if there is any video from the scene of the Absolutely True Story earlier from Dr. Russo...
Arrest Prohibition 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by TroutMask on January 31, 2002 at 06:56:38 PT

MJ Laws in Jeopardy?
But Justice Clarence Thomas noted that important constitutional questions remained, such as Congress' ability to interfere with intrastate commerceIt is my understanding that after the constitutional defeat of marijuana laws in the US Supreme Court by Dr. Timothy Leary in the late 60's, congress effectively re-enacted those laws by using "intrastate commerce" laws. That is, any marijuana found in any state is assumed to have crossed state borders and is therefore made illegal by technicalities in laws governing intrastate commerce. Even if you grew it in your state, it is still assumed the seeds crossed state lines.It seems pretty apparent that these are the laws Clarence is alluding to. If so, and if these intrastate commerce laws are challenged and defeated in the US Supreme Court, it would seem that marijuana (and who knows what else) would become legal again due to the unconstitutionality of the intrastate laws currently governing marijuana.Wouldn't that be nice?-TM
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo MD on January 31, 2002 at 03:50:35 PT:

Absolutely True Story
A close friend of mine attended a press conference in Vermont a couple of years ago where this happened. Gov. Dean is a physician, BTW, and should know better. In any event, he was asked what his stance was on industrial hemp. His response was basically as follows:"I'm against it. Hemp--marijuana---Cannabis sativa---same species---no difference!"The person that asked the question jumped up and said:"Crooks--politicians--Homo sapiens--same species--no difference!"Gov. Dean stormed out in anger, while the crowd went into hysterical gales of laughter.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by freedom fighter on January 30, 2002 at 23:34:07 PT

CATCH-22 "law"
''You can't smoke it in public; you can't share it with anybody,'' he said. ''It's similar to a prescription drug where you take it on the recommendation of your doctor.'' Similar?You sure can pop an Xanax pill in front of anyone as long you do not share it with anyone. So, how it is similar when you cannot even smoke the herb in public?I find these states that have passed med pot laws very stupid and corny. I'm not talking about Calif. Med-pot law. In Colorado, one can only grow six plants, 3 flowering and 3 immmature plants plus 2 oz. Sound pretty reasonable but it is not reasonable whatsoever. It is a CATCH-22 law.. What happens when one flowered 3 plants and harvested 6 ounces of herb? The sick one still get in trouble with the LAW.I just helped a friend who has the med-pot card set up his six plants. I am not even supposed to help him out and I really feel terrible for him because of this CATCH-22 BS. I do have the knowledge of how to reap harvest of 4-8oz per plant. I can go to JAIL 2 to 5 years plus 1/2 million dollars fine because of my knowledge. It was just based on ONE plant.I do not care about myself but for my sick friend who is so crippled that he need someone to help him out..This is sick..ff
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on January 30, 2002 at 20:20:34 PT

Interesting how that name comes up now
But Justice Clarence Thomas noted that important constitutional questions remained, such as Congress' ability to interfere with intrastate commerce, the right of states to experiment with their own laws and whether Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as a way to be free of pain.Maybe Thomas likes a little pot with his porn?But how did the Founding Fathers feel about pain?Since they grew cannabis themselves, maybe it was just beyond their imagining that any government would be so insane at to attack THAT.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment