Marijuana Legislation May Be 'Veto Proof'

Marijuana Legislation May Be 'Veto Proof'
Posted by CN Staff on June 16, 2005 at 00:09:13 PT
By Scott Mayerowitz, Journal State House Bureau
Source: Providence Journal
Providence, R.I.  --  The push to legalize the use of marijuana for medical reasons is heating up.As a House committee yesterday voted 10-2 in favor of the legalization, a national advocacy group started airing ads on network and cable TV urging Governor Carcieri to back away from his threat to veto the legislation.
The Senate passed a version of the measure 34 to 2 last Tuesday, and after last night's vote in the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee, the full House could be voting by tomorrow.The bill seeks to protect patients, their doctors, pharmacists and caregivers from arrest under state drug laws if a doctor certifies to the state Department of Health that the patient has pain from a "chronic or debilitating" medical condition, such as cancer or AIDS, that might be eased by marijuana.The state would issue registration cards allowing the patients and their caregivers to possess up to 12 plants or 2.5 ounces of "usable marijuana" at any time.Several changes were made yesterday to the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Thomas C. Slater, D-Providence.Slater added a sunset provision, repealing the law on June 30, 2007. The Department of Health would need to provide a report to lawmakers by Jan. 1 of that year on how the program is working. Lawmakers would then decide if they want to renew the law.The registration cards given to patients and their caregivers must now include a photograph in addition to their name, address, date of birth and other identifying information. Previously, the photo was optional.The list of people registered will be confidential. However, the latest version of the bill includes a provision requiring the state to notify state and local law enforcement of the number of qualified patients in each community.Snipped:Complete Article: Providence Journal, The (RI)Author: Scott Mayerowitz, Journal State House BureauPublished: Thursday, June 16, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Providence Journal CompanyContact: letters projo.comWebsite: Articles & Web Site:Marijuana Policy Project OKs Medical Marijuana Senate Approves Proposal To Legalize Approves Medical Marijuana Bill
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #11 posted by jose melendez on June 28, 2005 at 04:41:23 PT
100 percent proof?
Veto-proof vote expected today
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on June 16, 2005 at 13:46:43 PT
Article By Kevin Zeese
Bush is Not Above The LawScholars missed the point of the essay I wrote with Ralph Nader about the case for impeachment.By Kevin ZeeseJune 15, 2005 | The fundamental question is whether Congress and the American people were misled into an unnecessary, illegal war that has turned into a quagmire. Are the indications of false statements and misrepresentations sufficient to justify a pursuit of the truth? The evidence includes a series of exaggerated and false claims by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and officials in their administration over many months as the drumbeat for war grew louder. Statements were made in contradiction to the evidence included in intelligence documents from a wide range of U.S. and international agencies. As weapons inspectors were unable to find weapons of mass destruction, President Bush's rhetoric increased to the point of warning of a potential mushroom cloud over the United States generated by a nuclear attack by Saddam Hussein.  
And, most recently, explaining these inaccurate statements, is the Downing Street memo, which summarizes a meeting at which the head of British intelligence reported that the Bush government was "fixing the intelligence" to support its plan to invade and occupy Iraq. On June 13, Raw Story printed five additional leaked British memos showing that the commitment to go to war occurred well before the issue was brought to the attention of Congress. If true, this changes the consistently inaccurate statements into intentionally false statements. 
Unfortunately, there is no court of law in which to pursue these claims. No one has standing to sue the president for false statements leading to war. This can only be pursued by Congress in an impeachment inquiry. Should the president be held accountable for his actions? Is the president above the law or subject to the law? A "Resolution of Inquiry" is the first step to determining whether the president and vice president have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." If they have, impeachment is surely appropriate. A secondary question is the likelihood of success. All of the law professors Salon asked about impeachment opposed it because Congress is controlled by Republicans and therefore it is not possible. However, if you were a Southern sheriff in 1932 and you knew that members of the local Ku Klux Klan had lynched an African-American, but also knew that the all-white jury of their peers was not likely to convict, would you prosecute the case? Shouldn't the opposition party be raising the issue of impeachment because of false statements that led to an unnecessary war -- no matter how it turns out -- to ensure that the truth is uncovered? Of course, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of success before the evidence is even gathered. Gathering the evidence is what the impeachment inquiry is for. But already we can see some breaks in support for the president from members of his own party. Most notably, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. -- infamous for changing the name of the congressional cafeteria's French fries to "freedom fries" in protest of France's position on the war -- now recognizes he was misled into supporting the Iraq war and wants U.S. troops to be brought home. What will happen if more evidence comes out? If members of the intelligence community, current and former, are subpoenaed to testify under oath and they testify about how intelligence was manipulated, will there be more defections from the president's base of support? And, facing reelection next year and with their popularity already at a very low 33 percent, will members of the House risk their political careers to cover up for a lame-duck president who lied to get the United States into war and whose popularity is also dropping in the polls? One of Salon's commentators, Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, took a particularly bizarre position. He opined that we should expect dishonesty from our president -- so what's the problem? Said Cass, "In any four-year period, the nation's leader is highly likely to deceive the public on a serious matter at least once -- sometimes inadvertently, sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes for illegitimate ones. Of course presidents should not exaggerate evidence, and it's perfectly proper to ask whether Bush got us into war under false pretenses. But there isn't anything close to a sufficient basis for impeachment." For shame. Let us hope we have not gotten so cynical about the honesty of the president of the United States that we would allow him to lie to send American troops to their death! Surely this type of dishonesty is, as Mark Tushnet of Georgetown University Law Center noted in his Salon commentary, "exactly what the impeachment provision is all about." He went on to properly describe impeachment as a "mechanism for removing from office a person who had demonstrated the kind of political irresponsibility that seriously threatened the nation's political institutions." Other Salon commentators say impeachment is inappropriate because the president was reelected to a second term. Yet, in 2004 Sen. John Kerry also supported the war and said he would have supported invading Iraq even without evidence of WMD. So there was really no debate on this topic. And if reelection cleanses the record of a president, then Richard Nixon should not have been threatened with impeachment. The Watergate break-in was reported in the Washington Post during the 1972 campaign. The public knew about it and Nixon won in a landslide victory. Should that have ended the investigation of Watergate? Of course not. It is time once again for Congress to take up its constitutional responsibility as a coequal branch of government and provide a check and balance on a president who seems to have broken the law by manipulating intelligence and sending the nation to war. Copyright 2005
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by afterburner on June 16, 2005 at 12:12:08 PT
Much As I Support Representative John Conyers on..
the Downing Street Memo, I was disappointed that he did not vote on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment this week. We could have used his support.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on June 16, 2005 at 11:57:27 PT
Med Marijuana Moves To Rhode Island House Floor
Medical Marijuana Moves To Rhode Island House Floor Friends:NORML is pleased to inform you that Rhode Island's medical marijuana bill continues to move forward in the state legislature. After passing the Senate last week 34-2, House Bill 6052 is now making its way through the Rhode Island House. Yesterday the bill passed the House Health, Education and Welfare Committee yesterday with a vote of 10-2. A vote is expected by the full House as early as today. NORML expects this bill to pass the House of Representatives. However, since Governor Carcieri has promised to veto the bill, 2/3 of the House Representatives will need to vote in favor if medical marijuana is to become law in Rhode Island.If you have not done so already, please contact your Representative today and urge his or her support for HB6052 and patient access to medical marijuana. Pre-written letters are available at: will continue to keep you informed as this bill progresses through the legislature.To support NORML's state legislative work, please donate today at: you for your support.Regards,Paul Armentano, Senior Policy Analyst NORML
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 16, 2005 at 10:07:22 PT
I've been busy with our news and am totally not paying attention to the tv news but finally back to listening to music ( thank goodness ) but I agree with all the good people here about Bush.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by PainWithNoInsurance on June 16, 2005 at 09:51:34 PT
Remove the lying dictator !!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by runruff on June 16, 2005 at 09:36:00 PT:
Hey Georgy, You got a lot o' 'splaning to do!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by mayan on June 16, 2005 at 08:07:20 PT
DSM Hearings
Watch/Listen to C-SPAN 3 - Live! listen live... Pacifica Radio: Left:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by mayan on June 16, 2005 at 06:39:46 PT
Conyers could make history today. The Downing Street Memos just might spell the beginning of the end for Bush as the mainstream media is beginning to run full-steam with this story. I'm listening to NPR News and they just said that many military families want answers from Bush regarding the DSM. Five more Marines just died in Iraq. Bush has a lot to answer for.The Downing Street Memo Comes To Washington: 3 TO CARRY DSM HEARINGS: It to the White House Door: the Downing Street Memo Matters: Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq: Conyers and Deep Throat:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by mayan on June 16, 2005 at 06:28:00 PT
Let Governor Carcieri veto it. His future in elected office will be over. It sounds like the House has plenty of support anyway. What a statement an override would make! Rhode Island just might make Johnny Pee eat his words! unrelated...Ban on marijuana gardens renewed: marijuana issue is none of justices' business:,1249,600141694,00.htmlMarijuana fight is hypocritical:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by ekim on June 16, 2005 at 06:11:15 PT
Rep. John Conyers on now C-Span
Dir. tv ch 350
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment