cannabisnews.com: Va. Proposal To Study MJ Sales Fails

function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Va. Proposal To Study MJ Sales Fails');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/26/thread26846.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}












  Va. Proposal To Study MJ Sales Fails

Posted by CN Staff on February 03, 2012 at 12:13:28 PT
 By Michael Felberbaum, The Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press 

Richmond, Va. -- A Virginia lawmaker’s proposal to study the possibility of selling marijuana through state-run liquor stores has gone up in smoke. The joint resolution from Democratic Delegate David Englin of Alexandria was tabled on a voice vote Thursday night in a subcommittee of the House Rules Committee.Under the resolution, eight members of the General Assembly would have been selected to head a study on the feasibility of legalizing the use and sale of marijuana under certain conditions, and regulating that sale through the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Findings would have been due by the first day of the 2013 legislative session.
Another resolution to get the governor to petition the federal Drug Enforcement Agency to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug also failed earlier this week.Englin, who said he does not use marijuana, cited states with medical marijuana laws, societal changes and the need for more revenue amid moves to cut funding for core services across Virginia. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.The resolutions in Virginia were among a growing list of recommendations across the country to reform laws regarding the most commonly used illegal drug in the U.S. Advocates for reforming marijuana laws say 25 to 30 states will entertain bills on the issue this year.Supporters of the proposals say they’re not surprised by the outcome but are glad the issue is getting attention.Ed McCann, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the committee members took supporters seriously and were able to have a true discussion on the issue. McCann, however, said that elected officials seem to be “tone deaf” to the changing public view of marijuana use.Fourteen states already have some kind of decriminalization law, and 16 states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws in place. “The skies don’t fall, people aren’t all out on the road stoned (and) causing havoc. ... It’s not creating a big issue, yet it does bring in significant revenue,” McCann said. “I think that our frustration is just that elected officials continue to try to brush this under the rug, even when, when what we see, it’s not a political liability. ... They’re just not in tune with the times.”In 2010, then-Delegate Harvey Morgan, a Republican from Gloucester County, startled colleagues and endured ribbing from both parties when he introduced a dead-on-arrival bill to decriminalize possession of marijuana. He also sponsored legislation to broaden the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. A late-1970s Virginia law allows for medical marijuana for cancer and glaucoma patients.Source: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Michael Felberbaum, The Associated Press Published: February 3, 2012Copyright: 2012 The Associated PressCannabisNews  -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help    
     
     
     
     





Comment #13 posted by afterburner on February 06, 2012 at 09:14:58 PT
shielde #12
Interesting comment in that our Founding Fathers expressed a similar concern at the dawn of our nation."Our Founding Fathers called political parties 'factions' because they believed that such groups that held differing opinions were harmful to our national unity."
--Why arguments did the founding fathers have against political parties?
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_arguments_did_the_founding_fathers_have_against_political_partiesWow! Were they ever correct!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by shielde on February 05, 2012 at 22:02:20 PT
Politics
I know we are supposed to refrain from political views for the most part. I personally believe that on a ballot there should not be an option for straight rep or dem, and also the person's party should not be listed. This would mean that they would have to get elected not on party values but on the values of those voting for him/her and they would be held accountable on the next election. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 05, 2012 at 12:39:21 PT
MikeEEEEE
I know what you mean. It's just Democrats are heading in a better direction then Republicans.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 05, 2012 at 10:39:45 PT
FoM, republicans, etc.
It's a joke that Americans are only offered a democrat and republican. Obviously, they say whatever it takes to get the token number of votes (to make it seem real). But history has proven that all or most of these clowns do nothing for the people, in the United States of Corporate America (USCA).
 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on February 05, 2012 at 05:37:52 PT

MikeEEEEE
I agree with you. In about 10 years it just might happen. We have too many Republicans in power to move forward. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by greenmed on February 04, 2012 at 22:30:11 PT

Va. Medical Cannabis code - full text
18.2-251.1. Possession or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes permitted.A. No person shall be prosecuted under 18.2-250 or 18.2-250.1 for the possession of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol when that possession occurs pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.B. No medical doctor shall be prosecuted under 18.2-248 or 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol for medical purposes when such action occurs in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.C. No pharmacist shall be prosecuted under 18.2-248 to 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol to any person who holds a valid prescription of a medical doctor for such substance issued in the course of such doctor's professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.(1979, c. 435.)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 04, 2012 at 11:54:55 PT

FoM
Thanks. I'm starting to truely believe that cannabis will be legal somewhere in the states, in the next ten years. Too bad common-sense is not common. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by greenmed on February 04, 2012 at 10:01:14 PT

afterburner -- comment 5
Yes it is still on the books from a more reasonable time, although there is the "valid prescription" Catch-22. I believe a number of states passed similar, almost forgotten, legislation at about the same time.Then came "Just Say No."http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-251.1.HTM
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by afterburner on February 04, 2012 at 09:34:28 PT

Is This True? 
"A late-1970s Virginia law allows for medical marijuana for cancer and glaucoma patients."There is no mention of this partial medical marijuana law in NORML's Virginia state marijuana laws information. Are there penalties on the patients? Is it a prescription-only law? In other words is this so-called Virginia law at all functional? Or is the article's author misinformed? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Canis420 on February 03, 2012 at 20:18:41 PT:

Hmmmmm
This was to be expected...every year our voice will grow louder till we blast through their earplugs!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on February 03, 2012 at 19:37:49 PT

MikeEEEEE
It's good to see you. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 03, 2012 at 17:02:51 PT

Rednecks
With all the moonshine down there, they should know better.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by dongenero on February 03, 2012 at 12:45:56 PT

"Virginia is for Prohibitionists"
The new travel bureau, marketing campaign.
You really just have to laugh at this. This legislation was to simply "study the possibility of...". And as meaningless and non-binding as that would be, they still cannot even consider it. That is true close-minded obstinance.You are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution.......and Virginia politicians have weighed in.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment