House Considers Easing Up on Pot 
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('House Considers Easing Up on Pot ');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

House Considers Easing Up on Pot 
Posted by CN Staff on March 03, 2010 at 06:36:25 PT
By Norma Love, The Associated Press 
Source: Concord Monitor
N.H. -- New Hampshire's House is considering decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults - seven months after Gov. John Lynch vetoed a bill that would have legalized medical use of the drug. Lynch also opposes the new House bill to allow adults to possess one-quarter ounce or less of the substance; the bill does not address medical use. The House is scheduled to vote on the measure today.
Anyone under age 18 caught with one-quarter ounce or less would be subject to a $200 fine. The youth's parents would be notified, and he or she would have to complete a drug awareness program and community service within one year of the violation. Failing to comply would result in a $1,000 fine. The bill also would decriminalize transporting less than one-quarter ounce of marijuana. Decriminalizing marijuana has been debated for years but gained some steam in the Legislature after Democrats took control in 2006. The House passed a bill in 2008 that made possession of up to one-quarter ounce of marijuana a misdemeanor carrying a $200 fine instead of a misdemeanor that could have resulted in a sentence of up to a year in jail and fines up to $2,000. The bill did not make an exception for minors. The Senate killed it after Lynch said he would veto it for sending the wrong message to youth. Last year, the House killed a decriminalization bill and instead approved legislation to narrow the focus to use by severely ill people. That bill would have established three nonprofit "compassion centers" to dispense 2 ounces of marijuana every 10 days to severely ill people whose doctors approved the drug's use. The state would have licensed the centers and issued identification cards to their staff, approved patients and caregivers. In vetoing the bill, Lynch cited concerns over distribution and cultivation and the potential for abuse. He also said the bill did not clearly restrict marijuana use to people suffering severe pain, seizures or nausea. The House overrode the veto, but the Senate fell two votes short and the bill died. Bill supporters vowed to bring it back in 2011. In the meantime, state Rep. Steven Lindsey, a Keene Democrat, proposed the pending decriminalization measure. Source: Concord Monitor (NH)Author: Norma Love, The Associated Press Published: March 3, 2010Copyright: 2010 Monitor Publishing CompanyContact: letters cmonitor.comURL: http://www.concordmonitor.comCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #9 posted by Hope on March 18, 2010 at 04:43:43 PT
Jim Beck
Welcome to C-News.Sorry to hear of the loss of your cousin. I intend to remember her story the next time someone starts with the inferior medicine practiced every where but here.Sounds like you are working hard up there to do the right thing.Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on March 17, 2010 at 15:54:59 PT
Jim Beck 
Welcome to CNews and thank you for the link and information.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Jim Beck on March 17, 2010 at 14:41:43 PT:
medical bud in North Carolina
  I am from Canada and had a cousin who lived in North Carolina,(Bloomington)as she was an operating room nurse in one of their major hospitals for many years. After many Misdiagnosis in North Carolina she came back to ontario canada to look after her sick mother. While here, she sought medical attention and found out that she had terminal cancer. Sadly she only lived for two weeks after that. Its a sad thing for me to still realize daily of how political our medical practices have become. It used to be about healing and house calls and caring. How far we have all regressed in the past few decades.
   I have a medical marijuana grow-op in northern british columbia canada. I have been persecuted from day one up. Our police forces here try to dictate policy on cumminty blogs and try to sway public opinion.
   My stance is this and it is not political and I certainly don't bear any blame on you southeners for my cousin's death. We must take a closer look at the medical aspects of thc. We are using sixty day marijuana oil treatments up here that are curing chronic cancer, aspenger's syndrome, alleviating diabetes and doing wonders with m.s. If you need documents I will send them to you and give you (doctors, lawyers, politicians)all the help that I possibly can to eradicate these heartbreaking chronic cancers. Really that's all that everyone would want is the end to disease and illnesses forever. 
          Yours Truly,
          Jim Beck,
          Box 537,
          Fort Nelson, B.C.
          V0C 1R0
Medical Pot in N.C.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 04, 2010 at 12:02:57 PT
Medical Pot in N.C.?
March 4, 2010URL:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by BGreen on March 04, 2010 at 06:55:58 PT
Governor Lynch
What does PRISON do to perfectly healthy people and is it worse than what cannabis does to perfectly healthy people?I'll give you two guesses and throw out your idiotic first guess.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by vincent on March 03, 2010 at 21:17:47 PT:
Gov. Lynch
Gov. Lynch should be ashamed of himself. Everyone knows why
he vetoed the bill. That way he could please some Conservatives whose votes he thinks he will get. Prostituting himself, like any politician.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by dongenero on March 03, 2010 at 13:16:26 PT
Gov Lynch's medical opinoin
Governor Lynch is not a doctor of medicine but plays one in the media.Why would a government body draft something so narrowly that it gives no latitude to the real experts, the doctors? These people no nothing about the medical protocol they are legislating for.How about wording it; restrict marijuana use to people suffering from conditions which are currently considered by medical practice to be treatable with marijuana."Is there a problem with doctors doctoring and legislators legislating? Same for cops. Go find some violent criminals, rapist/murderers for instance, rather than sharing your "medical opinions".Everyone's an expert in everything these days by virtue of their right to shoot their mouths off. Shhheeesh! How about a bit of common sense, science and experts in a given field?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Hope on March 03, 2010 at 12:33:05 PT
Prohibitionists' "Concerns" about cannabis
are perfect examples of the old adage about trying to get a speck out of someone else's eye while there is a freaking log in their own eye."In vetoing the bill, Lynch cited concerns over distribution and cultivation and the potential for abuse. He also said the bill did not clearly restrict marijuana use to people suffering severe pain, seizures or nausea."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on March 03, 2010 at 07:04:31 PT
Vioxx update
Last Vioxx payouts to be made soon....50,000 heart attacks and strokes........By Associated Press | March 2, 2010TRENTON, N.J. - Drug maker Merck & Co. has made its final, $4.1 billion payment into a fund to settle tens of thousands of US claims that withdrawn painkiller Vioxx caused heart attacks or strokes, the company said in a regulatory filing yesterday.The final payouts to those patients or their survivors, from the $4.85 billion settlement fund, should be made by the end of June, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.About $4 billion of that was reserved for heart attack patients. Their claims have already been processed and either paid or denied.“The stroke claims are still in progress, and final payments are expected to be made sometime in the second quarter of this year,’’ Ted Mayer, outside counsel for Merck, said in an interview.He said nearly 18,000 claims involving strokes are in process, and about 7,400 of those resulted in initial payments. Mayer could not immediately say how many of the heart attack claimants received payments and how many were determined not to fit the eligibility rules for claims.The SEC filing said Merck has finalized some other parts of the sprawling litigation begun after it yanked Vioxx from the market in September 2004 because it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.That triggered lawsuits from around the world, filed by Vioxx users or survivors alleging the Whitehouse Station, N.J., company downplayed the drug’s dangers, which Merck denies. Other suits were filed by shareholders who collectively lost billions of dollars and by insurance plans, unions, and individuals.In November 2007, Merck reached a $4.85 billion settlement with plaintiffs’ lawyers to resolve most of the roughly 50,000 product liability suits alleging Vioxx harmed or killed users. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment