cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Law Opposed by Douglas





Medical Pot Law Opposed by Douglas
Posted by CN Staff on February 26, 2003 at 21:33:55 PT
By David Mace, Vermont Press Bureau 
Source: Rutland Herald 
Montpelier -- Republican Gov. James Douglas said Wednesday he would oppose legalizing marijuana use for people with diseases like AIDS and cancer because it would still be illegal under federal law and there are other drugs available to help those suffering from such conditions. “I have tremendous empathy for those who suffer from chronic pain and who feel they would benefit from medical marijuana,” Douglas said. “But I think it would be awkward to legalize a substance that could still the subject of prosecution by federal authorities.” 
Douglas praised the work of advocates and those who participated on a study commission this summer that was set up after a bill passed the GOP-controlled House last year but couldn’t be reconciled with a Senate version. He said they should focus their efforts on changing federal law. “I really think the proper forum for this debate is at the Food and Drug Administration,” which regulates prescription drugs, Douglas said. “They’ve authorized the use of marinol, a THC-based drug, and could certainly agree to extend that authorization to marijuana if the FDA believes it appropriate.” Douglas said he was also concerned about the message that legalization for medical purposes would send, though he said that was a secondary consideration. Douglas’ statements came as lawmakers worked to craft a final version of the bill. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, said he hoped the bill could be on its way to the Senate Finance Committee by the end of the week and on the floor for debate when the Legislature returns from the town meeting break. The bill, modeled closely after the one that passed the House last year with tri-partisan support, requires a doctor’s certification that the patient suffers from one of several specified conditions and needs marijuana to relieve symptoms. The Department of Health would determine whether the person was eligible, and patients who were rejected could appeal, though that mechanism is still being worked out. In addition, a person could register to be a patient’s caregiver, and the Health Department would keep the records confidential unless police needed to verify the information. Persons authorized to use medical marijuana couldn’t smoke it in any public place, and could not be under the influence while driving or in other circumstances when they could endanger others. In addition, a registered user or caregiver could also grow medical marijuana in a locked indoor facility and transport it in a locked container, an effort to prevent confusion by police. Since a search warrant would be needed to look in the container or search a home, that would provide time to search the database and determine whether the owner was exempt from prosecution. Police and the Vermont attorney general’s office had opposed the bill on grounds similar to the governor’s and because it would force patients to go to drug dealers for pot or seeds. Douglas acknowledged their concerns had played a role in his decision. “We’ve been advised by the Drug Enforcement Agency that they not only reserve the right to prosecute people for possession and use of marijuana, but state officials who administer the program,” he said. “That got my attention. … They haven’t done it anywhere else, but they have notified us that they reserve the right to do that.” Advocates for medical marijuana were downcast by Douglas’ position. “We’re disappointed,” said Virginia Renfrew, a lobbyist for the HIV Public Policy Project, who served on the summer study committee. “The fact is that there are eight states that have taken the bold step to allow seriously ill people to use medical marijuana in the privacy of their home under the guidance of their doctors … and we have not seen any doctors or patients arrested.” She said Vermont’s law, if passed, would be “the strictest in the country,” and questioned whether the federal authorities would seek out and arrest program participants or administrators. “Of course they’re going to say that, but let’s look at the eight states that do this,” Renfrew said. “In five, they’re run by state programs … has one state official been arrested? What message would that send if the feds came in and arrested a governor because they had a medical marijuana program in their state?” Advocates for medical marijuana have pointed to testimony from AIDS patients and others who say that they can’t take oral medications like marinol and that it doesn’t work well for them anyway. The summer study committee concluded that “although scientific evidence is limited, marijuana has some medical value in reducing patient suffering … and, consequently, the General Assembly may determine that compassion … requires that it be made available to those patients for whom it will provide some relief not attainable with other prescribed medications.” Renfrew was blunt: “If you talk to somebody who’s seriously ill they’ll say (marinol) is not very effective and it’s extremely costly.” While the bill appears to have support in the Democratically controlled Senate, its passage in the House is still far from guaranteed. Opponents like Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland City, said they would continue to fight it. “Coming from Rutland where we have such a big drug problem … my biggest concern is the message it sends,” DePoy said. He worried that keeping marijuana out of the hands of those who were not patients would be difficult, and that medical marijuana could be a first step toward recreational legalization. And while House Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, who supported the bill last year, said she believed the bill could pass her committee, she wasn’t sure that was the case in other committees, particularly the Health and Welfare Committee chaired by Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town. Douglas acknowledged he would discuss the matter with House leaders, but wouldn’t say whether he’d veto the bill if it landed on his desk. “I don’t want to issue veto threats,” he said. Source: Rutland Herald (VT)Author: David Mace, Vermont Press Bureau Published: Thursday, February 27, 2003Copyright: 2003 Rutland HeraldContact: info rutlandherald.comWebsite: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmCommittee Backs Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15408.shtmlVermont Study Endorses Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14742.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Atomic_Rat on March 02, 2003 at 11:49:19 PT
George Bush said states could decide MJ laws.
George Bush, during the 2000 presidential campaign, said he didn't see medical marijuana as warranting national attention. In October 1999, he told The Dallas Morning News that, with respect to medical marijuana, "each state can choose that decision as they so choose." 
Christians for Responsible Use
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by michael on February 27, 2003 at 15:09:38 PT:
Awkward, Awkward?
   Did this latest case of arrested development say awkward! So because this self evident idiot decided to turn on his people and whimper like a puppy, hundereds and maybe thousands of people in his state will be at risk for arrest, pain and maybe worse, death! It's about power, not people. As far as there being other medications besides cannabis, it continues to show the ignorence of most of these people in power. I am totaly disabled,ok! Now all of you idiots out there listen up! I am "allergic and or have severe reactions" to all medications, including muscle relaxers, maranol, morphine, and the endless list of medications that have been TESTED on me. This is documented over a course of 30 plus years. I get so sick as to wish I could die when I take this stuff. I am 53 and have tried every med known to man, and recently too. But when I vaporize or smoke cannabis, it relieves my sysmptoms dramaticly, and I don't get sick. So, what is your argument now oh ignorant ones? Ya, I know. Your affraid of the big bad government. Well my fellow American, I'm affraid of you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by medicinal toker on February 26, 2003 at 22:55:51 PT
Rutland Herald contact info wrong?
That email add bounced, so I used their webform at: http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Opinion/Letters/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by freedom fighter on February 26, 2003 at 22:03:27 PT
tremendous empathy ?
Ask a human being who is sick. Please do'nt tell a healthy person that you do have tremendous empathy but you felt awkward because it is Federal who must control the sick people.Could anyone in right mind tell their mother that one have tremendous empathy but we must follow the federal law even if their mother are suffering from some diease?ff
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment