cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Measure Ignites Opposition





Medical Pot Measure Ignites Opposition
Posted by CN Staff on September 13, 2004 at 07:14:44 PT
By Brad Cain, The Associated Press
Source: Register-Guard
Salem -- A measure on the Nov. 2 ballot to expand the medical use of marijuana is drawing fire from the White House drug czar, who says it would turn Oregon into a ``safe haven for drug trafficking.'' Measure 33 would make it easier for ailing people to obtain marijuana and allow them to possess more of it.But White House drug czar John Walters, echoing the criticism of Oregon's district attorneys, calls Measure 33 a ``fraud'' on Oregon voters and a back door attempt to legalize marijuana.
``People are being played for suckers,'' Walters said in an interview from Washington, D.C. ``Their compassion for sick people is being used to do something that's destructive for the state.''Proponents say, however, that Oregon's current program is too restrictive and that Oregonians already have shown they support allowing ill people to have the drug by overwhelmingly approving the 1998 law.The chief petitioner for the measure is John Sajo, a longtime marijuana activist who sponsored an unsuccessful 1986 ballot measure to legalize marijuana. But he said that isn't the issue in Measure 33.``Our opponents don't have any good arguments against medical marijuana, so they call this a legalization measure. That is nonsense,'' Sajo said.Measure 33 would represent a significant expansion of Oregon's medical marijuana program, which was approved by the state's voters in November 1998. Oregon is among nine states with medical marijuana laws.Possession Limit Disputed Under Oregon's current law, qualified patients are allowed to grow and use small amounts of marijuana without fear of prosecution as long as a doctor says it might help their condition.The measure on the Nov. 2 ballot would create state-regulated dispensaries authorized to supply up to 6 pounds of marijuana per year to qualified patients, although they could possess only 1 pound at any given time.The current possession limit is 3 ounces, an amount that advocates say is too low and often leaves patients scrambling to find enough marijuana to ease their suffering.The initiative also would expand the number of health care professionals who can recommend marijuana for their patients. Right now only physicians and osteopaths can do that; the measure would give licensed naturopaths and nurse practitioners that authority as well.The Oregon District Attorneys Association opposes Measure 33 mainly because of the provision allowing patients to possess 6 pounds of marijuana a year plus 10 mature plants.That would give patients enough pot to smoke a joint every hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, Benton County District Attorney Scott Heiser said.``This is not about medicine; this is about recreational use of dope,'' Heiser said.Heiser also objects to the measure because it requires free marijuana for indigent patients.The Oregon Medical Association, representing more than 7,000 physicians statewide, has paid for a page in the state Voters' Pamphlet to urge Oregonians to vote no on Measure 33.``It is a thinly disguised effort to legalize the use of marijuana without any medically scientific justification,'' it said.The association said safer, synthetic derivatives of marijuana are available to patients and that studies have shown that smoking marijuana can damage people's lungs.Pot Activist Opposes Measure Also opposing Measure 33 is Stormy Ray, a 48-year-old multiple sclerosis patient who was a leading spokeswoman for the 1998 measure authorizing medical marijuana. Ray said she is worried the measure could end up undermining the existing medical marijuana program.``I've spent years helping with the development of Oregon's medical marijuana program,'' Ray says in a Voters' Pamphlet statement. ``No one has the right to jeopardize our program.''Walters, the White House drug czar, said the federal government wouldn't sit by and watch Oregon create a system of dispensaries that would dole out 6 pounds of marijuana to patients each year.Such a system would be wide open to abuse by drug users and sellers, he said.``We do not intend to let any part of the United States become a safe haven for drug trafficking,'' Walters said. He declined to elaborate on what steps the federal government might take in that case.For Angelique Yeakle, one of 10,000 Oregonians who hold state-issued cards allowing them to possess marijuana for medical reasons, the issue boils down to making what she considers a humane law work even better.Yeakle, who suffers from lupus - a disease that attacks the body's immune system - said smoking marijuana has greatly improved her quality of life by restoring her appetite and relieving body spasms.``People shouldn't have to suffer when they don't have to,'' she said.Source: Register-Guard, The (OR)Author:  Brad Cain, The Associated PressPublished: September 12, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Register-GuardContact: rgletters guardnet.comWebsite: http://www.registerguard.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Stormy Ray Foundationhttp://www.stormyray.org/Voter Power Foundation http://www.voterpower.org/Pot Measure Steams Drug Czarhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19473.shtmlYes on 33: MMJ from a Patients Perspectivehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19427.shtmlPolitical Insanity About Marijuana and Drug Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19426.shtmlOregon To Vote on Easing Medical Marijuana Use http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19124.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by Dankhank on September 14, 2004 at 07:46:32 PT:
meet halfway ...
A good point ...Here in Oklahoma, Ralph never made it on the ballot last time. Oklahomans wanting to vote for Ralph were screwed.One of my published LTEs to the local rag addressed that point.I agree, and would have said it last night, but got tired.PS ... a LP president would still have to contend with a two-party Congress.In red states, Democrats should vote Libertarian. In blue states Republicans should vote Libertaran. In toss-up states all should vote for Kerry.Sound good?OK, all, let's do it :-)
vote
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by CorvallisEric on September 14, 2004 at 00:42:07 PT
Badnarik? Can we meet half way? (comments 11-12)
If I lived in one of the 20 to 30 states (like Oklahoma) where the election outcome is almost as certain as the sun rising tomorrow, I would probably vote for either Badnarik or Nader. I might even enjoy the torture of choosing between them. Everyone who does that sends the message that things are not OK in the Big Two. That's a plausible part of the strategy to win this war.The election will be decided elsewhere. The winner - again, almost as sure as tomorrow's sunrise, assuming no major calamity - will be either Kerry or Bush. We could argue from now until election day why this is so, and what can be done to restore real choice to American voters (obvious and moderate idea is some kind of run-off election). The better choice for anyone who values personal freedom more than short-term material-gain-for-a-few is John Kerry. Also, this election is extremely important because the future direction of the Supreme Court will likely be decided by the next President.Here in Oregon (a toss-up state but leaning to Kerry), the drive to get Nader on the ballot was dominated by a bunch of cackling Republican hyenas who would like nothing more than to see us in prison if not dead.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Dankhank on September 13, 2004 at 23:08:04 PT
Vote for ...
I agree with the Libertarian party, (LP), on most of what it proclaims to be Libertarian thought.I sharply disagree with LP regarding minimum wage. LP would have you believe it is all about the Federal Govt. mandating a wage that a business should control.Currents Events ratify my position which is: Business cares little for employees, indeed, consider employees to be a nuisance wanting things like "reasonable wage for work," retirement, reasonable hours, safety on the job, health care ... all things that make employees costly. For years companies restructuring to improve the "bottom line" would often achieve that by laying off workers. 40,000 here, 60,000 there, sometimes right before Christmas. Now the jobs are going overseas. In a few more years we're gonna be like South America, and I promise you don't want to have an economy like them.I'm not sure what the Libetarians, Conservatives, Neo-Cons expect us all to buy when the good jobs are all gone.Wow, got maudlin in the wee hour.Peace, vote ABB
anybody but bush
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by military officer guy on September 13, 2004 at 19:58:53 PT
http://badnarik.org/Issues/MedicalMarijuana.php
http://badnarik.org/Issues/MedicalMarijuana.php
some more light reading for fellow activist...
the Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the USA and doesn't believe responsible people should be thrown in jail for a plant...
we can win this war...
don't vote for the lesser of the two evils...vote Michael Badnarik for president...
http://www.badnarik.org/blog
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by CorvallisEric on September 13, 2004 at 13:25:19 PT
breeze - comment #8
Sorry, I should have sprinkled a dozen IMHO's in my post. I'm only trying to give a personal reaction, not claiming to "know the truth." If I have time and oomph and/or get more reactions, I might attempt a longer answer, but I'm a very slow and lazy writer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by E_Johnson on September 13, 2004 at 13:15:14 PT
If only...
The headline of this article makes me think --- spontaneous combustion.Their pointy little heads get so heated up, they just all catch fire.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by breeze on September 13, 2004 at 12:13:04 PT
CorvallisEric-Comment #7
Where you may not believe in things that are beyond your realm of thinking, knowledge, acknowledgement , understanding, reasoning, religion, or general scientific acknowledgement of things such as psychics, or UFO's, aliens beings from other dimensions, and the like- where is it written that you are the end all authourity of such subjects? Just because you "think" that these things are impossible, or just plainly don't exist- it doesn't mean that they do not.I get rather tired of people who claim that these things are irrelevant to our understanding of the universe. A great astromoner who smoked marijuana, Carl Sagan, once professed that there are other intelligent enitities in the universe. And this man was known for his superior intellect. He also said that he "doubted" that these beings had visited our planet, but that did not mean they have not- in fact, there is a hell of a lot of evidence that points to the fact that beings from other worlds have in fact visited this world.To try and ridicule people for what they know, what they understand, what they have experienced- without understanding that the person who reports these events, acknowledges the fact that such occurences are indeed rare and hard to comprehend by those who have never had such an incident occur to them individually demeans you to the individuals who know otherwise.If you could walk in the shoes of such an individual, utilizing the eyes, ears, and mental process of such a person, you would garner an entirely different vision of the fragile world in which we live. Just because you may be an atheist, it doesn't mean there is not a supreme being who rules the universe- it is better to say that you don't believe in any of the structured relgions available. Because there may be a small number of people who know something you do not, it doesn't mean that you have to believe them- but to try and force your sheeple mentality on others regarding the subject of aliens, spirits, faries, whatever- is equal to the arguments you have against maintaining that marijuana should be legal instead of illegal. You know that there is madness behind keeping it illegal, you know the truth, and you try to make others see the light- but the sheer numbers in the herd are against you regarding the topic- but you toil along regardless, stating that you know something most others do not. Well, the same "law" applies when addressing issues that deal with "supernatural" events, beings and what not. There are a few people who know some things you do not, this is natural- I know how to fix computers, but I have not the slightest idea on how to fix a toaster oven if it is broken. If you cannot acknowledge this- you need to examine the world around you and realize that there are things you may NEVER experience. I may never parachute from an airplane, but I know that some people do so for fun and others for purposes of war. What you may see as disfuntional in one person, it is in truth, quite normal to others. Arrogance plays a huge part in this endeavour.But just as there are people who claim that they are for marijuana decrim, there are people who are within the movement who are not- just as there are people who claim to be psychic and are really just in the society to make money off of people who believe such gifted people exist. It does not mean that there aren't people with such abilities, it means that there are a lot of people who take advantage of other peoples beliefs- just as propaganda does for the WOD, it masterfull manipulates people into believing one thing- often times the opposite is true, it just depends on how the situation is addressed.So, we live in a world where there are more charlatans than truth. We live in a world where people proclaim themselves to be something that they are not, and yet hold high and powerful places to wield their intent and do so easily. For anyone to proclaim that they know EVERYTHING that is possible, as well as not possible, is a sign of ignorance that I cannot comprehend. Take this as a personal issue, for it is only to hopefully make you a better person. To pass judgement on issues that you have no idea of- is equal to John Walters denying MJ to anyone who needs it, besides the other obvious issues that surround the subject- all the while proclaiming that his view is righteous, caring, and compassionate. Proof is not always easy to see when you have been brainwashed into believing the lies and decpetion placed before you, neither is truth.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by CorvallisEric on September 13, 2004 at 11:19:10 PT
Re: Dirty Secret (comment #4)
I looked at the "conspiracydigest dirtysecrets" page. Sorry, anyone whose book description ( http://www.conspiracydigest.com/urisbook.html ) includes --- True Stories from the 4th Dimension dives into the extraordinary world of remote viewer David Morehouse, author of "Psychic Warrior" --- has totally lost my confidence in his credibility. It's like listening to Art Bell - sometimes genuinely good and interesting guests, but often (usually?) it's just plain looney-bin baloney. Sometimes it takes a whole hour to know which - quicker way to figure out is to read the book reviews on Amazon.On the other hand, the Salon article (April 20, 2001:) about Walters is good stuff: http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/04/20/drug_czar/index.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by siege on September 13, 2004 at 09:02:04 PT
                stig·ma 
This is what John Walters wants: for the best interest for these sick peoplestig·ma  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stgm)
n. pl. stig·ma·ta (stg-mät, -mt, stgm-) or stig·mas  1. A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach: “Party affiliation has never been more casual... The stigmata of decay are everywhere” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.). See Synonyms at stain.
  2. A small mark; a scar or birthmark.
  3. Medicine. A mark or characteristic indicative of a history of a disease or abnormality.
  4. Psychology. A mark or spot on the skin that bleeds as a symptom of hysteria.
  5. stigmata Bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain corresponding in location to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus, usually occurring during states of religious ecstasy or hysteria.
  6. Biology. A small mark, spot, or pore, such as the respiratory spiracle of an insect or an eyespot in certain algae.
  7. Botany. The receptive apex of the pistil of a flower, on which pollen is deposited at pollination.
  8. Archaic. A mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave; a brand.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 08:52:53 PT
good one Hope
Excellent point Hope.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by siege on September 13, 2004 at 08:48:12 PT
         Dirty Secret:
Drug Czar Walters and the Iran-Contra Connection John P. Walters, appointed "Drug Czar" by President George Bush Jr., is uniquely qualified for his new job. He was actually involved in the Iran-Contra Drug Trafficking Cover-up.And that's what John Walters was all about. Now he's appointed 'drug czar,' which is not only ironic, it's absolutely laughable."http://www.conspiracydigest.com/dirtysecrets.htmlAccording to Salon.com, "In his 1996 book on the drug wars, Up in Smoke, Dan Baum quotes Walters as saying, 'The health people say 'no stigma,' and I'm for stigma.' Baum writes that Walters 'took the position that marijuana, cocaine and heroin 'enslave people' and 'prevent them from being free citizens' in a way that tobacco and alcohol do not.'" 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Hope on September 13, 2004 at 08:24:37 PT
hmmm
"``Their compassion for sick people is being used to do something that's destructive for the state.''"I remember when people were under the impression that "compassion for sick people" rose to something quite a bit ABOVE "the state". Lord!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by global_warming on September 13, 2004 at 08:12:23 PT
Destructive
""We do not intend to let any part of the United States become a safe haven for drug trafficking,'' Walters said. He declined to elaborate on what steps the federal government might take in that case."Is this guy planning to raid the whole state, maybe add this state to the axis of evil..."``People are being played for suckers,'' Walters said in an interview from Washington, D.C. ``Their compassion for sick people is being used to do something that's destructive for the state.''So am I to assume that you, John Walters, has the best interest for these sick people?? If you had such compassion for the people and the state, why would you continue to raid and incarcerate these sick people and the places where they can get the medicine they need, don't you think that locking up sick people sends the wrong message about human compassion, and is this not the greater destructive action that you support?John, you are on the wrong side.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dongenero on September 13, 2004 at 07:41:39 PT
My best James Cagney
Yeaaaa. People are being played for suckers, see? Yeaaaaa.Nevermind that the voters have already passed the medical marijuana laws. Oh and the 6 pounds if you do only one annual harvest? Insn't that the same amount being supplied to the remaining people in the Federal Governments' own program. That they never mention however.Shheeesh....who's playing who for a sucker? 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment