cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Act Passes NJ Panel





Medical Marijuana Act Passes NJ Panel
Posted by CN Staff on December 16, 2008 at 07:21:04 PT
By Derek Harper, Statehouse Bureau
Source: Press of Atlantic City
Trenton, NJ -- New Jersey took a major step toward becoming the latest state to allow certain patients to use marijuana Monday, when the Senate's Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee approved the Compassionate Use Medicinal Marijuana Act by a vote of 6-1.Elise Segal, who testified in support of the legislation, said the committee's vote "really brings me to tears, not just for me as a someone suffering from multiple sclerosis, but as a registered nurse and for all the people that I've treated."
The Department of Health and Senior Services would register people with debilitating medical conditions, which would include cancer, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, or other diseases that cause wasting, chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms. The department then would issue a photo identity card and allow those registered to possess as many as "six marijuana plants and an ounce of usable marijuana," according to the bill.As a result, the person would not be subject to arrest or penalty for the use of marijuana. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies marijuana as Schedule I, the most restrictive class of drugs.The federal prohibitions will remain, but the bill's supporters said the overwhelming number of prosecutions are under state law, so it would lift most of the prohibitions.The bill still bars people from operating a car, boat or airplane under the influence of marijuana. It also bans people from smoking marijuana on a school bus, public property or beach, or in a correctional institute or park. The bill would also apply to patients younger than 18, but it requires a parent or guardian's informed approval.A late amendment would also allow people to start Medicinal Marijuana Alternate Treatment Centers, which would dispense regulated marijuana.The measure was first proposed in 2005, but Monday marked the first time a bill has cleared a state legislative committee. Thirteen other states have approved similar measures.Testimony was a tug-of-war between advocates who testified how smoking marijuana can relieve pain and suffering and opponents who said the drug is dangerously untested and its partial legalization would increase crime and drug addiction.Sen. Jim Whelan, D-Atlantic - who cosponsored the bill with Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, Somerset, Middlesex - said, "I think the consequences of not acting is far worse with all of the pain and suffering we have heard about here today."Similarly, Sen. Bill Baroni, R-Middlesex, Mercer, the only Republican to vote in support, said after a weekend of consideration, "There is too much pain, too much hurt, too much suffering, and we can do something about it."The hearing included Brent Zettl, president of Prairie Plant Systems Inc., of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, who testified via video on the process the company uses to produce sterilized medicinal marijuana. He said a challenge in court essentially pushed the company into business, but now it covers 30 percent of the Canadian market.Segal was also one of several patients who told senators how marijuana helps them in their fight against illness."I am able to relieve my multiple sclerosis symptoms, but I run the risk of being a criminal," Segal said. "You have the power to relieve my suffering."Other New Jersey groups in support of the bill included the Academy of Family Physicians, League for Nursing, local chapters of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and the Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.Opponents of the measure questioned why people would be allowed to grow so many plants, how effective any smoked drug could be, and said there is too much uncertainty without FDA approval.Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge, said medicinal marijuana sends the message to children that harmful drugs are legal. She also said drug abuse has risen in states where marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes.The committee approved the bill 6-1 with two abstentions. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote as early as January. A companion measure was introduced to the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee in January.Source: Press of Atlantic City, The (NJ)Author: Derek Harper, Statehouse BureauPublished: Tuesday, December 16, 2008Copyright: 2008 South Jersey Publishing Co.Contact: letters pressofac.comURL: http://drugsense.org/url/DIaMuJW3Website: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Coalition for Medical Marijuanahttp://www.cmmnj.org/Moved by Patients, Committee Clears Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24371.shtmlMedical Marijuana Bill Clears Senate Committeehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24370.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #62 posted by FoM on December 23, 2008 at 06:49:02 PT
christ
I hope you enjoy the CNews family. We have nice folks here. I accidentally nuked your registration the first time you registered and I can't fix it when that happens. You re-registered and I hit the right button this time. Enjoy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by christ on December 22, 2008 at 21:48:56 PT
Rescheduling is compassionate
Hey FoM,first time poster... long time reader. Great site!Your post #9 + PAUL's post #6 give me great hope. Obama says he's in favor of prescribing marijuana. Well to prescribe it, doesn't it need to be rescheduled?Sounds to me like Obama is in favor of rescheduling.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by THCdrummer on December 18, 2008 at 00:20:12 PT:
dangerously untested?
"Testimony was a tug-of-war between advocates who testified how smoking marijuana can relieve pain and suffering and opponents who said the drug is dangerously untested and its partial legalization would increase crime and drug addiction."dangerously untested ... except its been studied what, over 17 thousand times? i guess that number isnt big enough yet. how many times have they tested 5-hour energy? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by afterburner on December 18, 2008 at 00:01:15 PT
Re Patience
It took the neocons many years to eff up America. It will take time to reconnect with the true American Spirit. Our federal agencies are controlled by corporate interests, undermining the health of the public.Many activists here at Cannabis News are advance scouts for truth and right. Soldier on, brothers and sisters, but don't forget to duck when the shoes of the prohibitionists are thrown your way.Hope, charming as ever: "new guys" & "grizzled veterans" & "rodeo talk." Love it. I too would prefer a quick fix, an all-American instant mix-water solution. I am tired of the needless suffering and death resulting from this foolish pogrom against cannabis, but I am also realistic. "It takes time for love to grow."We need to share the country with our fellow Americans, evil or not. They are our neighbors, co-workers and family members. Talk to them, convince them, if necessary fight them in the media, in the courts, in the public arena. Hold Obama accountable. Hold his feet to the fire. Show him we won't back down. It's legalization or bust. Decriminalization is a timid half-measure (slightly better than continued criminal sanctions). Decriminalization does not really do what it says: only possession is decriminalized, leaving supply in the hands of criminals, with the potential for violence, theft and pollution unregulated.Gambling with Your Health (comic). 
Monday, December 15, 2008 by: Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor.
Key concepts: Health, Nature and Mother nature 
http://www.naturalnews.com/025091.html{ Truths and Rights brought back the reggae island fever, encouraging all revellers to relax and soak in the sun. The highlight of the band’s performance was keyboardist and vocalist Friendlyness’s commentary. “We are Truths and Rights here on the iCoke stage, but I don’t coke so for the next half hour this is the iWeed stage,” he jested. And who doesn’t enjoy a little bit of comedy during a set? }
2006-08-11 - Wakestock - Toronto Islands
By: Ilona Fridman Truths and Rights - Toronto, CA - Reggae
http://www.myspace.com/truthsandrightsband
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 15:14:29 PT
Decriminalization versus legalization.
It will still be illegal. It will still drive the black market. It will still not be "controlled" or regulated in any way at all. It will still not be "above board" where it needs to be.It will still involve people behaving as violently as they possibly can when they feel they have to.So I can only see decriminalization as a step towards the only solution for peace. Legalization and a certain amount of reasonable regulation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 15:07:55 PT
I feel that way when someone dies
unnecessarily because of this prohibition. Considering the injustices and grief inflicted on others in the name of their war, I get to feeling something like that looks, from time to time when I just can't hold it back. It's an outrage. A total outrage all too often.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 15:04:10 PT
Lol!
That's "Grizzly", not "Grizzled"!Although I can identify with the bear. I've felt that way myself about it all sometimes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by FoM on December 17, 2008 at 10:36:14 PT
Hope
You made me think of a picture except I like the bear. LOL!http://drugsense.org/url/Xam3CKeH
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 10:04:50 PT
Grizzled veteran story...
It's just been a few years ago that you could read all the news and commentary on cannabis prohibition, and drug prohibition in general, in fifteen or twenty minutes a day.Now there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with it all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 10:00:30 PT
Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug-Free Kids
I think I'm going to start a new organization right here and now and make my self president. I'm president of "All the Kids". You don't have to be "Drug-Free" for me to care about you and your futures. I care more about what and who you are, and are making of yourself, than I do about what "drug" might be in your body fluids and hair follicles. Whether they got there through your choice or your physicians choice. I care about you getting shot by a swat team in a drug raid. No matter what chemical compounds might be searched and seized from your very flesh, I still care about you. I care about you having your hands bound, and being ridiculed and tormented, and being put in a cage because of a weed. I care about prison rape. I care about lost educations and torn apart families and dashed hopes and futures.It's been looking to me like, for a very long time, that the "Kids" and adults, as well, need to be protected from some way over zealous do-gooders that are doing WAY more harm than good.Their "Messages to the children" aren't nearly as "good" as they think they are. As one of those children might say, "Most of their "messages" really suck".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 09:13:49 PT
"right out of the chute" 
Ripit, I couldn't help but think, "and this isn't our first rodeo." I don't know whether to laugh or cry about that!.Rescheduling has to be one of the steps... one of the battles. It has to be."Right out of the chute", is rodeo talk. So is "There's never been a bronc that couldn't be rode and there's never been a cowboy that couldn't be throwed."We've been "Thrown" or "Throwed", many times. We ARE riding this particular "Bronc", no matter how many times we have to get up on it again. And if we don't get this thing under control, those fresh recruits will.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 09:03:27 PT
Comment 44, commenting on my own comment.
"Now it's like I kind of sense, most people, pro and con, seem to expect some form of legalization to happen sooner than I do."I think there are several reasons for that. One is that some people are just really thinking seriously about it for the first time and others have just joined our ranks as fresh recruits for reformers of bad law. They're fresh to the field. They're on fire and are ready to fight and win. They think, since they see the truth so clearly, perhaps for the first time, that this can't last long, because the balance of truth and right and sheer morality are so in our favor. I suspect they will have to go through the disappointments and disgust and the agony of the slowness of it all just like we have. Of course, maybe it really is nearly over and these new citizen soldiers won't have to live through so much battle before they see victory.It's our long years of battle experience in these particular trenches, deaths, wounds, scars and all, that makes us suspect these new guys may have to experience becoming grizzled veterans, too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by FoM on December 17, 2008 at 08:53:59 PT
ripit
I agree. If marijuana was rescheduled to 3 or 4 why would people be afraid of the police as far as being raided goes?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by ripit on December 17, 2008 at 08:43:32 PT
i understand why 
he can't act on this right out of the chute as they say. they said President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.which is not in his power to do at this time but that didn't say he was not in favor of rescheduling which apparently is! i wonder if that will happen?while a reschuduledown just one step would be a big big step in it self, would it not?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 08:39:45 PT
GCW
I don't think we ever had a chance with Clinton. He was a total, to the core, liar and deceiver. He would be all sweet and act like he cared to some people's faces... but he was a snake who didn't care if he deceived us or not. Anything to seduce our votes out of us. His wife has lived with that kind of snakiness so long and seemingly, accepts it, that I couldn't trust her, either.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 08:34:02 PT
LaGuardia, I agree.
"Such is the nature of our political system, for good or ill. I am expecting several more years of having to fight the good fight in order to get to that point."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by The GCW on December 17, 2008 at 08:28:56 PT
HEMP is HUGE! & LaGuardia,
HEMP is a big answer to many of America's ills.And like the medical cannabis issue, it exposes those against it as questionable people and questionable Americans.By forcing the hemp issue, We force anti-hemp people to show they have no cards.Some, Anti-Americans are the Americans who oppose hemp.-0-LaGuardia,I agree; We have to hound Obama.We must not yell and don't need to yell, But He must be made to realize We are not to be ignored, ever.Someone pointed out, We had a chance with Clinton and We blew it; We better not blow it with Obama.One thing the "Christian Right" did was insinuate the importance of supporting their issues or they would not support Bush on the next election...We must organize more and more and bring that threat to Obama;Work with Us, or find another job in 4 years.We have that much of power.And if Obama stops the federal government from closing dispensaries in California, We must not slow down Our fight and organization to re-legalize hemp and cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 08:28:33 PT
Paul Armentano Comment 6
I think you're right. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by Hope on December 17, 2008 at 08:10:29 PT
FoM and Sensemilla Jones
I like your hoop analogy. Great. "As long as they're not burning!"If it weren't for patience we'd all have quit or wound up in jail from losing it to anger a long time ago. Or worse, been murdered through applied neglect, like Peter McWilliams, or pushed to suicide, like Robin Prosser. The persecution has been deadly for some of us.One thing I know now that is very comforting. People have finally started speaking out in greater numbers against cannabis prohibition and for many reasons. And low and behold... we don't have to listen to all that crappy "Not in my lifetime" rotten, molded bologna talk. I'm so thankful for that. Now it's like I kind of sense, most people, pro and con, seem to expect some form of legalization to happen sooner than I do.Decriminalization is a hoop, but at least it's not on fire so much. It's won't be completely right until it's legal and regulated, because with just decrim on the possession level, there will still be a serious, major, perhaps deadly, prohibition and criminality involved somewhere up the line. I'm thinking it could actually be worse as violence is escalated against the "criminal" supplier and suppliers fighting among themselves without recourse to law.So yes, I think a lot of people, maybe even Obama, are thinking decriminalization. I think decriminalization is a deescalation of a bad, dangerous, and unjust situation but it's still too bad, dangerous, and unjust to tolerate as public policy and law. We, as reformers have always stood on and depended on truth and right and a better, saner sense of justice than some people seem to have. Truth and right wasn't the kind of tangible foundation you could see that clearly, but we knew it was there. Things are obviously getting a lot more "tangible" these days in all kinds of ways. We know our goal of freedom and justice is a lot closer to attainment than it's been in a long time. Our ranks are only going to increase and we will see the end of this prohibition sooner or later. I certainly vote for sooner so maybe some lives, families, and futures can be saved.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by tintala on December 17, 2008 at 07:59:21 PT:
I agree with comment # 27
I agree with THE GCW: legalize HEMP, produce more jobs, get off oil addiction.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by FoM on December 17, 2008 at 06:32:17 PT
Yell At Me or Ask Me
If a person yells at me I ignore them. If a person is kind and asks me and gives me an option of not agreeing I will listen. I will give President Elect Obama the time because I would hope that people would give me time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by FoM on December 17, 2008 at 05:35:33 PT
afterburner 
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year a little early. I agree with you. Here's a new song by Neil Young that I like. This is from Madison Square Garden on the 15th.It's called Light a Candlehttp://thesongdog.rusties.net/sounds/ny2008-12-15t10_lac.mp3
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by LaGuardia on December 17, 2008 at 05:35:03 PT
re: afterburner
I agree with your general sentiment preaching patience in a sense, but let's not forget that each of the reactionary groups that you cited -- overprotective parents included -- are morally "bad" people who deserve to be characterized as such, and to their faces no less. These are people who want to continue to the suffering of the sick and incarcerate morally unculpable recreational users, as well as the distributors who serve both groups (who are merely meeting a demand that the market will meet regardless of the law). Calling them out for the "evil" that they represent may be the best way to win hearts and minds at this juncture, Obama's included.For too long have the prohibitionists taken the moral high ground on "drugs," painting using marijuana as "bad," "wrong," "dirty," and akin to shooting up heroin in an alley. Their grip on the moral high ground has been slipping in large part due to their clearly immoral and irrational stance against medical marijuana, which has helped expose them for the cruel and basically evil people that they are.So what is the "evil" of our time? Is it the generally harmless medical or recreational marijuana user who only "harms" others if one stretches the definition of "harm" to extremes not supported by the English language? Or is it the prohibitionists who want to make the sick suffer, arrest the innocent for what amounts to direct or indirect personal gain, destroy families, lie at most any opportunity to further their agenda, and attempt (as an earlier poster wrote on an earlier thread) to rhetorically reduce reformers to "convicted drug dealers?" The use of the "convicted drug dealers" line, for example, is clearly intended to influence the listener on moral grounds due to the perception that "drug dealers" are "bad people" who "poison our children." Fortunately that tired trope did not work on the New Jersey Senate committee, and why should it when the utterer of that line is the one who wants to prolong the pain and suffering of the ill?This charade has gone on too long. The prohibitionist charlatans and their enablers are going to hell and they need to be told so to their faces. It is time to turn the page and aggressively portray the prohibitionists and their enablers as the "evil" ones. This trend is already happening but we should not relent, potential backlash notwithstanding. Obama should not get any slack because, as observer noted, this is considered a "third rail issue" that Obama will seek to avoid addressing unless he is required to by us and the public-at-large (whom we need to convince that continued persecution of marijuana users is morally wrong). Perhaps he needs prohibitionist cred in an "only Nixon can go to China" sense (yes, I read the encyclopedia entry . . .) but he needs to be challenged on this issue over and over until he is "forced by public opinion" to take action. Such is the nature of our political system, for good or ill. I am expecting several more years of having to fight the good fight in order to get to that point.BTW, the "mad as hell . . ." line is from the movie "Network," which I highly recommend if one likes films that involve ranting and raving at the establishment.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by OverwhelmSam on December 17, 2008 at 05:33:21 PT
Obama Not In Favor of Marijuana Legalization.
From change.gov Obama answered the number one question unfavorably. It's getting to be about time to let our politicians know that their own personal beliefs, feelings and opinions are IRRELEVANT! Their were hired to represent the beliefs, feelings and opinions of their constituients, not their own personal bullsh!t.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by afterburner on December 17, 2008 at 02:03:46 PT
Patience, Folks
Obama is not even President yet. Do you really want him to tip his hand too soon?. Eventhough medical cannabis is legal in The Netherlands, Canada and states like California, just look at the backlash and continued resistance:Closing some of the coffeeshops, media and law enforcement harassment of patients, and county supervisors suing to overturn the law. (And don't forget those panicky, misinformed, overprotective parents and those smell-averse neighbors.)Take a deep breath, relax and stand up for your rights!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by observer on December 16, 2008 at 20:28:57 PT
re: Too Controversial 
A: President-elect Obama will not use his political capital to advance the legalization of marijuana. While he agrees that arresting adults for marijuana possession is a poor use of law enforcement resources, he believes that the issue remains too controversial to do anything about it.
Encyclopedia > Third rail (metaphor)The phrase third rail is a metaphor in politics to denote an idea or topic that is so "charged" and "untouchable" that any politician or public official who dares to broach the subject would invariably suffer politically.The third rail in a train system is the exposed electrical conductor that carries high voltage power. Stepping on the high-voltage third rail usually results in electrocution. The use of the term in politics serves to emphasize the "shock" that results from raising the controversial idea, and the "political death" that the unaware or provocative politician would encounter as a result.Disagreement may occur over whether a specific issue is a "third rail" issue. Nonetheless, the following examples are often "third rail" issues in the United States:[...]* Legalization of controlled substances and de-escalation of the "War on Drugs" in the United States.[...]
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Third-rail-(metaphor)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by LaGuardia on December 16, 2008 at 19:53:20 PT
LaGuardia is mad as hell
Obama is likely concerned about what happened to Carter on the marijuana issue back in the 1970s (after his drug policy adviser was exposed for doing coke), but it has been 30 years since then and pot is no longer controversial unless you are some kind of loser or you work on the Hill (a redundant statement vis-a-vis working on the Hill). For example, marijuana decriminalization in Massachusetts is less controversial than banning Greyhound racing! And those dogs are cute! Even the people who won't smoke pot because it will "ruin their career" (or whatever quasi-intangible harm that they have convinced themselves that it poses) wish that they could with impunity.Let's get more righteous, turn up the heat on Obama some more, and see what cooks. We are about 15% of the voting population and we do not deserve to be treated like criminals. I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by The GCW on December 16, 2008 at 19:22:42 PT
POLL
New pot collective Does Marin need more medical marijuana clubs? Yes 
 No http://www.marinij.com/
 
Marin, California-0-This article is interesting, by the way:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n1127/a05.html?397US CA: New Medical Marijuana Collective Opens In SausalitoPubdate: Mon, 15 Dec 2008Source: Marin Independent Journal (CA)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 17:41:27 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
I'm with you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 17:36:04 PT
I don't mind the hoops, if they aren't burning!
I just want the fires out, and some consideration for those who can't jump.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 17:33:19 PT
The GCW
I don't know if he will speak about Hemp himself but maybe his Green team will.High Hopes for Obama's Green Dream Teamhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1866682,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 17:27:55 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
In a perfect world people would always be considerate of others and people would be able to do what they want. We don't live in a perfect world so hoops will always need to be jumped thru. Just keep those jumpin shoes close! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by The GCW on December 16, 2008 at 17:27:15 PT
FoM,
I recall You said that. -Obama voted for the hemp bill in 2000...-0-I'm more interested in what He will do now, as President.He's in a position to make it happen now.I'd like to hear Him come out and answer this question on prime time news.If America re-legalizes hemp farming today, America grows tomorrow.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 17:10:18 PT
FoM #15, too
I'm not saying he should come out for the "legalization of marijuana", but the call for "non-criminalization of federal penalties against cannabis as a means to allow, states that wish to do so, freedom of choice for farmers to grow greener crops, for the sick to use natural medicines that they find effective, and for localities that wish to experiment with alternative ways of fighting drug abuse which have proved effective in parts of Europe..." would be nice, lol.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 17:02:23 PT
The GCW
I think he voted for the Hemp Bill in 2000 in Illinois and the Republican governor veto it. I don't know how to find the information though.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by The GCW on December 16, 2008 at 16:59:44 PT
Ask Obama about hemp.
It was very good to make the #1 question, if He will re-legalize cannabis. It brings the issue to His attention etc. Good. That was important…But now I’d like to extend a point. The question got attention but I think the answer was already known.The question I would like to have seen as #1 would have been; -Will You re-legalize hemp cultivation for America’s free farmers?-I believe, That one slaps Him in the face if He answers it wrong.-0-As far as Our country is concerned, I believe HEMP IS MORE IMPORTANT to re-legalize in many aspects. (I can’t believe I’m saying that; I might think otherwise later….)But think of how many jobs are moved overseas manufacturing products near petroleum with cheap labor. America would have lost less jobs if the products produced were made with hemp resins instead. And that’s just one facet of the equation.Like the movement to re-legalize medical use has been successful, a movement for allowing American hemp cultivation should be growing too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 16:53:20 PT
Sam
I agree with comment 21.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 16:51:56 PT
Sinsemilla Jones
I don't think people who are addicted to hard drugs should be imprisoned either. They need help because a person doesn't get caught for snorting a little coke but doing stuff like Robert Downey Jr. did that was really out there. He woke up in a strangers house in a bedroom. He needed help.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 16:46:19 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
Some people said that Obama was a messiah. He is not a messiah but a good, controlled and deep thinking politician. He has done remarkable things thru his campaign and inspired young and old alike. You can get involved locally with groups to help with ideas for his administration. He was not rich or well known. He is black with a middle name that freaks people out or at least it did. He wants to be good at being President. I believe we need to let him become the President. Let him sort out what he is going to do and be patient. He is a person who is open to new ideas. He listens and that is a great beginning. He answered the question thru his team even though some aren't happy with his answer. He is a lawyer that knows the Constitution. He is young and progressive. I couldn't ask for more.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by The GCW on December 16, 2008 at 16:42:50 PT
Disparities & a questions
Disparities? Wouldn't that be like waht exists in government's Schedule system? Cannabis & HEMP = Schedule ICoke and meth = Schedule II-0-Questions for Obama.Should a person be not allowed to run for President if they were charged and punished for using cannabis?And what's the difference between a cannabis user caught, charged and punished and one not caught?-0-Obama was the best choice for President, but make no mistake - He should be honest with the country regarding cannabis & HEMP.HEMP for crying out loud!There is a point where I will think He's got a problem (read bought) if He comes out of the next 4 years and doesn't let FREE American farmers grow hemp.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 16:35:06 PT
FoM #15
I'm for the legalization of plants and the right of the people to grow and use them as they have for thousands of years.As far as weird ass chemicals created through chemical extraction or synthesis that were never available to humanity before the last couple of hundred years or so, certainly some government control, as science and facts dictate, might be in order.However, I don't think anyone should be in jail or prison simply for being addicted to drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by sam adams on December 16, 2008 at 16:31:03 PT
obama
I wouldn't worry too much about this Q&A thing - of course he's not going to say "yes" on this. Even if he really wanted to legalize he's not going to declare it now on some website. He'd start with some incremental measures & see how far he could go.I think he could just instruct his AG and the DOJ to stop the med MJ raids, I believe Clinton told Janet Reno to ignore CA after they lost their Supreme Court decision on doctor recommendations andt that was it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Sam Adams on December 16, 2008 at 16:24:28 PT
story on JN
is amazing! I would have laughed and thought to myself "I can't believe I was dumb enough to take my 5 year old to a KISS concert" and told all my friends about the experience and had a good laugh. Instead, she decided to try to control the behavior of 15,000 other people, whom she never would have seen again in her life if she stayed away from heavy metal concerts.I hate the way the story makes it seem like she's some sort of trailblazer, instead of merely another bandwagon-jumper on the temperance movement from the 1920's and before. The truth is that alcohol Prohibition wiped out the temperance movement for a good 50 years. The experiment failed so spectacularly, they didn't really start the drug war until the 70's when the Prohibition generation had died off.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 16:16:11 PT
FoM #14
I pretty much agree with all that. I just got my hopes up that they might really listen to the people, and realize that now was the time for a bold move that would help the economy, help the environment, save the government a lot of money, reduce the prison population, etc., etc. And might even insure his re-election, because people like me would vote for him again if he boldly called for an end to federal cannabis prohibition, and a lot people not like me would vote for him if it works better than prohibition, which of course wouldn't be hard.I guess the thing is, who knows what would happen if he did call for legalization (or even decriminalization or some such), but was blocked by Congress, thus he could be accused of wanting a nutty plan that wouldn't work, without the plan being given a chance to work. Which considering the lousy Congress we have and likely will have next year, probably would happen.So, I'll try to go back to being happy that he might at least lay off the sick, and that he definitely can't be anything but an improvement for US foreign and domestic policy in general.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by paul armentano on December 16, 2008 at 16:01:29 PT
AOL news covers this -- tongue planted in cheek
Well, the Change.gov poll just made it to AOL News — always a day late and a dollar short.Of course, the prerequisite puns and double entendres are abound, and there’s no mention that the question finished first out of 7,300 policy issues, or that similar questions dominated the Top 20. No, that might imply that this is a serious news story. Is it any wonder the Obama team took the dismissive curt tone it did when this is the way the MSM covers the issue?PS: I suppose folks can ‘vote’ in the AOL online poll, which is also phrased as one big joke…http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/16/will-barack-obama-legalize-marijuana/Will Barack Obama Legalize Marijuana?by TOMMY CHRISTOPHERDEC 16TH 2008 3:19PMfiled under:eDemocrats, Barack Obama, Obama AdministrationBarack Obama’s transition website, Change.gov, added a new feature recently that allows people to submit, and vote on, questions for the President-Elect and his team. After a bump in the road involving the spiking of Blagojevich-related questions, the site has put out it’s first round of questions and answers.The fourth question on the list contains the aforementioned question, and its disappointing, if unsurprising, answer. From Open For Questions:
Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?” S. Man, DentonA: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.
If the transition team had any sense of humor at all, they would have answered, “Are you high?”Still, the fact that this question did so well ought to give the incoming administration some food for thought. A case of the Mental Munchies, if you will.After being propelled to victory on a wave of energized young voters, and in light of the dominance of baby-boomers in the US population, it may be time to revisit the taboo herb’s legality. What better way to jumpstart a green economy?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by observer on December 16, 2008 at 15:35:00 PT
more on Joyce Nalepka ...
more on Joyce Nalepka ... http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7357.shtml#5
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by paul armentano on December 16, 2008 at 15:26:18 PT
Hempworld, just to clarify
The "too controversial" quote in question is cribbed from a post by Scott Morgan at StoptheDrugWar. You can click on the link I provided to see my full post formatted a bit better.I actually think the opposite... that this issue isn't "controversial" at all among the general public, just among insular politicians. I mean, marijuana law reform received more votes in MA and MI on Election Day than Obama...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 15:25:02 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
I thought people who are into changing the laws on hard drugs would be happy with that. Obama said no to legalization. That is a word that has no wiggle room. Trying to corner Obama into a gotcha question will be hard.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 15:13:23 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
I don't expect much from Obama. I voted for him because I lean towards the Democrats and I know he is intelligent and one heck of a politician. I understand going back if you were a Green or Libertarian but I have never been one and I am very happy with Obama and can't wait until he becomes our President.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 15:10:38 PT
I just don't understand.....
How can reducing penalties for crack cocaine be less controversial than reducing them for cannabis/marijuana/hemp?!To put it another way, Biden/Obama are willing to not only put on their website, but this past year introduced legislation to reduce penalties for crack cocaine in relation to powder cocaine, yet can't bring themselves to do the same thing for marijuana in relation to alcohol, or even favor making it legal for farmers to grow hemp!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by HempWorld on December 16, 2008 at 14:38:30 PT
"(Marijuana) issue remains too controversial"
This is what you wrote Paul, but we should all think about this statement.Should we stay away from an issue because it is too 'controversial?' (and therefore have no progress, as in allowing us to cure certain types of diseases and cancers with a newly developed cannabinoid pharmaceuticals)Or, is this issue 'controversial' because the DEA and many other well organized and well paid bureaucrats and private organizations are making and keeping it so? And because the pharmaceutical giants are advertising and marketing new 'lifestyle' drugs, such as viagra and cialis.I think that it has been made controversial by all the paid messages (read propaganda) and advertising from anti-marijuana forces (private prison industry and private drug free organizations, big pharma and moralists) and our dept. of Justice with ill conceived laws and the legislature and law enforcement that thrive in this environment.
On a mission from God!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 14:30:39 PT
FoM
I'm realistic, too....I realistically think I'll be going back to voting for Libertarians and Greens in 2012.I thought all the criticism of Obama before he's even taken office was unjustified, especially when it was about mere rumors, but when the administration-elect ignores the sentiments of the people, ideas which they pretended to solicit for consideration, and dismisses them with a quick, curt response that shows they didn't consider them at all, it really pisses me off.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 14:17:49 PT
Science and Facts!
BHO said, in introducing his "green team", that our nation's environmental policies should be based on science and facts!Shouldn't the nation's drug policies be based on science and facts?!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 16, 2008 at 14:14:25 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
I am reading the comments on this thread. I like most of the comments. One did make me realize why President Obama can't legalize marijuana and this is the comment.This is from a comment on the Huffington Post.Unfortunately, Marijuana was criminalized by an act of Congress and can only be decriminalized by an act of Congress. POTUS doesn't the authority or power to overturn congressional legislation. However, Obama does have the power to re-schedule cannabis sativa as say a Schedule IV drug rather than what it is now which would drastically change the focus and cost of the Drug War. He also has the power to direct the agencies he's in charge of to finally begin to issue permits for growing hemp again. I personally favor complete legalization of all drugs, but I'm putting my energy into realistic achievable goals.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/obama-team-answers-first_n_151411.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 14:00:24 PT
I submitted that to change.gov.....
at these three feedback pages -http://change.gov/page/s/yourstoryhttp://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeoplehttp://change.gov/page/s/yourvision
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on December 16, 2008 at 13:40:45 PT
Compassion and common sense for crackheads...
but not for potheads -Eliminate Sentencing Disparities: Obama and Biden believe the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda/Why do users and sellers of a dangerous concentrated form of poison deserve a break, but users and growers of a non-poisonous plant, which also has many medical and industrial uses which are being prohibited in the unsuccessful war on cannabis, don't deserve squat?Is there not a disparity in the laws between cannabis/marijuana/hemp and alcohol, tobacco, coffee, OTC drugs, etc.?Is there not a disparity in sentencing between those who grow cannabis/marijuana for there own personal use and those who obtain it from the black market?Is there not a disparity in laws that allowed the growing of corn, wheat, grapes, and other crops that could be used to create alcohol during Prohibition, and laws that prohibit farmers from growing cannabis/hemp because cannabis/marijuana is prohibited by today's War On (Some) Drugs?Are these disparities in the laws concerning cannabis not more wrong that those concerning the poisonous extracts of the coca plant?Shouldn't these disparities in the laws concerning cannabis as compared to legal plants, drugs and medicines be completely eliminated?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by paul armentano on December 16, 2008 at 12:01:38 PT
Now the bad news...
http://blog.norml.org/2008/12/16/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old BossDecember 16th, 2008 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director Share this Article      “The war on drugs has been an utter failure. … (W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation’s) marijuana laws.”
-Barack Obama, January 2004 (Watch the video here.)“I inhaled frequently, that was the point.”
-Barack Obama, November 2006 (Watch the video here.)Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”A: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”
-Statement from Change.gov, the official website of President-Elect Obama, December 15, 2008Okay, count me among those disappointed, but hardly surprised to see that Change.gov — the official website of the incoming Obama administration — answered the above question, which finished first out of over 7,000 public policy questions submitted to the website, in the most curt and dismissive way possible.That said, as StoptheDrugWar.org’s Scott Morgan writes, Obama’s brevity is, in fact, quite telling.As frustrating and insulting as it is to witness an important matter brushed casually to the side without explanation, Obama’s answer actually says a lot. It says that he couldn’t think of even one sentence to explain his position. Within the vast framework of totally paranoid anti-pot propaganda, Obama couldn’t find a single argument he wanted to associate himself with. That’s why he simply said “No. Next question.”All of this highlights the well-known fact that Obama agrees that our marijuana laws are deeply flawed. He‘s said so, and has back-pedaled recently for purely political reasons. If Obama’s transition team tried to give an accurate description of his position on marijuana reform it would look like this:Q: “Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?” S. Man, DentonA: President-elect Obama will not use his political capital to advance the legalization of marijuana. While he agrees that arresting adults for marijuana possession is a poor use of law enforcement resources, he believes that the issue remains too controversial to do anything about it.In fact, Obama essentially said as much earlier this year when asked about the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.Obama: “When it comes to medical marijuana, … my attitude is if it is an issue of doctors prescribing marijuana, … I think that should be appropriate. … Whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on (this) issue; the likelihood of that being real high on my priority list is not likely.” (Watch the video here.)So then, disappointed as we are, how should we proceed?Answer: Just as we have been.To be fair to President-Elect Obama, he never pledged to legalize marijuana. Quite the contrary, during his Presidential campaign he backtracked from his previous comments supporting pot decriminalization, and he even went so far as to pick one of the chief architects of the modern drug war to be his Vice President. In short, to believe that the Obama team would have responded to the legalization question any other way was idealistic at best, and foolish at worst.But that hardly means that we activists should write off the next four years.In November, editors at the website Alternet.org asked me to draft “a progressive agenda for Obama” regarding marijuana policy. At that time, I listed several realistic, practical actions Obama could take to substantially reform America’s antiquated and punitive pot laws. (Note, legalizing marijuana by Executive Order was not on my wish list.)These actions include:1. As President, Obama must uphold his campaign promise to “not … use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws” that legalize the medical use of cannabis. (Watch the video here.)2. Obama can appoint leaders to the US Department of Justice, DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy who possess professional backgrounds in public health, addiction and treatment rather than in law enforcement.3. Obama can support the autonomy and health of Washington D.C. voters by encouraging Congress to lift the so-called “Barr amendment” (passed by Congress in 1998 and reinstated every year since then), which prohibits the District of Columbia from implementing a 1998 voter-approved ballot initiative legalizing the use of marijuana by authorized patients.4. Obama can call for the creation of a bipartisan Presidential commission to review the budgetary, social and health costs associated with federal marijuana prohibition, and to make progressive recommendations for future policy changes.Ultimately, of course, it’s Congress, not the president, who is responsible for crafting America’s oppressive federal anti-drug strategies. Moreover, it is clear that in the coming years this battle will continue to primarily be fought — and won — on the state level, not in Washington D.C.That’s not to say that we should not continue to keep the pressure on Obama by continuing to post questions to websites like Change.gov. (My suggestion for the next round of voting… How about: “On Election Day, over 3 million voters decided to legalize the medical use of cannabis in Michigan, making it the 13th state to enact laws allowing the legal medical use of marijuana. While campaigning, you pledged: ‘What I’m not going to be doing is spend Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws on this issue.’ As President, will you and your Attorney General uphold this promise not to target and prosecute patients and providers who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws?“)However, we must always remember that it will be the actions of tens of thousands — not the actions of just one man — that will ultimately bring an end to America’s vindictive and senseless war on cannabis consumers.Now let’s get back to work!
http://blog.norml.org/2008/12/16/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by paul armentano on December 16, 2008 at 12:00:05 PT
First the good news...
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/15/legalizing-marijuana-tops-obama-online-poll/Legalizing Marijuana Tops Obama Online PollDecember 15th, 2008Be careful what you wish for.Last week, the website Change.gov — the official website of the Obama Transition Team — asked the public to provide them with a list of the top public policy questions facing America. Visitors to the site were then asked to vote on which questions should take priority for the incoming administration.According to the website, “participation … outpaced our expectations. … Since its launch … the Open for Questions tool has processed over 600,000 votes from more than 10,000 people on more than 7,300 questions.”Ironically but perhaps not surprisingly the top question for the new administration — as chosen on and voted by the general public — was one most politicians seem utterly unwilling to talk about.“Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”To anyone thinking the #1 question was some kind of fluke, consider this: More than a dozen of the top 50 vote-getting questions pertained to amending America’s drug policies. For example:Question #7: “Thirteen states have compassionate use programs for medial Marijuana, yet the federal government continues to prosecute sick and dying people. Isn’t it time for the federal government to step out of the way and let doctors and families decide what is appropriate?” The public’s demand for the Obama administration?”Question #13: “How will you fix the current war on drugs in America? and will there be any chance of decriminalizing marijuana?”Question #15: “What kind of progress can be expected on the decriminalization and legalization for medicinal purposes of marijuana and will you re-prioritize the “War On Drugs” to reflect the need for drug treatment instead of incarceration?”Following the poll, the Obama Transition Team posted the following reply, “Over the next few days, some of the most popular questions selected by the Change.gov community will be answered by the Transition team, and their responses will be posted here on the site.”So will Obama’s team respond to the demands of the electorate and initiate an honest, objective, and long-overdue review of U.S. Marijuana policies? Or will the incoming administration — like the outgoing one — hide their collective heads in the sand?It was just over a month ago when statewide marijuana law reform initiatives in Massachusetts and Michigan prevailed with more votes than America’s soon-to-be 44th President — once again reaffirming the widespread popular support for changing our nation’s antiquated and punitive pot laws. It wasn’t clear that either the national media or the incoming administration were listening then. Are they listening now?Permalink | Comment on this post (0) By National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Deputy Director Paul Armentano 
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/12/15/legalizing-marijuana-tops-obama-online-poll/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on December 16, 2008 at 10:00:09 PT
congrats
New Jersey is a very progressive and open-minded state, I'm glad to see this bill progressing, I hope it becomes law this year.It won't easy though, I'm sure Big Pharma is going to resent the insurrection on their home territory! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by ripit on December 16, 2008 at 09:55:01 PT
 charmed quark
 thank you for that image! i'm happy to hear that!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by charmed quark on December 16, 2008 at 09:46:19 PT
Someone did point that out
Hey, ripit.That was pointed out to her and her response was that we had enough drugs already and we didn't need another abusable drug out there. I almost laughed out loud at that as the pharmaceutical companies, a major force here in NJ, would probably not like that answer.Overall, I think there testimony actually helped the Senators make up their minds. Several made negative comments regarding the arguments made by these people. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by ripit on December 16, 2008 at 08:53:26 PT:
somebody needs 
to tell Joyce Nalepka harmful drugs are legal.and can be bought right over the counter.i know ppl who have died from too much tylenol.here i sit forced to use opiates and methadone to control my pain and they don't even work that well. they have so many unwanted side effects their killing me. the worst i think is constipation.having to take other pills to just to go to the bathroom blows hardcore! and here i am preaching to the choir 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment