cannabisnews.com: Efforts Renewed To OK Pot for Ill





Efforts Renewed To OK Pot for Ill
Posted by CN Staff on December 21, 2003 at 22:10:51 PT
By Paul Hughes, Record-Journal Staff
Source: Record-Journal
State Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, R-Stafford, says smoking marijuana eased her late husband's pain as he fought a rare bone cancer to the end.The side effects of chemotherapy left Bacchiochi's terminally ill husband incapacitated for days. The pills the doctors had prescribed did not work. A grim time turned even bleaker. Then, one doctor privately suggested giving marijuana a try. The illegal pot worked wonders, according to Bacchiochi.
The first-term Republican told the story of her husband's marijuana use on the House floor last session. The disclosure came during a debate on legislation that sought to make it easier for seriously ill patients to take advantage of a 1980 law that permits the medicinal use of marijuana in the state. The bill fell a dozen votes of short of approval despite the impassioned pleas and personal stories of Bacchiochi and other House members.Bacchiochi is again asking colleagues in the General Assembly to change Connecticut law on the medical use of marijuana. She and Rep. James W. Abrams, D-Meriden, the chief sponsor of last year's failed legislation, sent a letter out to all legislators earlier this month asking for their support.The letter signaled the renewal of the legislative effort that Abrams and some advocates first mounted three years ago."We are going to push for the medical marijuana bill as hard, if not harder, than last year," said Robert Rook, executive director of A Better Way Foundation, a New Haven-based nonprofit group that supports a shift in state policy on illegal drug use.The bill last session proposed to allow seriously ill people to present a defense of medical necessity to state charges of growing, using or possessing marijuana. It was not a sure-fire guarantee against arrest or conviction, however.The advocates of medicinal marijuana use are not sure what legislative tack they will take in the upcoming 2004 session. The one certainty is that whatever they propose, there will be opposition."There is absolutely no reason for anybody to smoke marijuana," said Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, the ranking House Republican on the Judiciary Committee.Once a bill is drafted, advocates will need a strategy for selling the legislation to lawmakers, Gov. John G. Rowland and the public. They say they have learned lessons from last session's failings."This year, we are going to be smart," Rook said.Opponents last session harped about the lack of expert medical testimony. "When we had the hearing last year, we did not have doctors lining up and saying, you ought to smoke a joint when you have a drug treatment," Farr said. The only doctor that testified before the Judiciary Committee was a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology from Yale University. Abrams said practicing physicians must testify next session. Rook said that is going to happen.A Better Way Foundation plans to recruit witnesses from the 400 or so doctors it said signed a letter of support for last session's legislation. Advocates of medicinal use also plan to have patients and family members meet with legislators and the news media as part of a lobbying and public education campaign. They will ask lawmakers to consult their personal physicians. Additionally, supporters are counting on the personal stories of legislative colleagues such as Bacchiochi to sway opinion. "Her story is so compelling," Abrams said. Opponents will counter such stories with their personal experiences. Farr said none of the doctors who treated family members and friends for cancer, glaucoma or multiple sclerosis ever recommended they smoke marijuana.Bacchiochi insists that she is no crusader out to reform marijuana laws. "I am not trying to change people's minds." Bacchiochi said she came to her own conclusion after seeing how marijuana helped ease her husband's suffering. She said fellow legislators must make up their own minds. However, she said she is asking colleagues to be open-minded.Advocates of the medicinal use of marijuana say research shows marijuana is effective in treating such ailments such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and chronic pain. They claim that it is sometimes more effective than prescribed drugs and has fewer side effects."The fact of the matter is there no medical use of marijuana," Farr said.The American Medical Society opposes legalization of the sale and possession of marijuana, and it recommends that it be prohibited for public use. The AMA says more study is required to determine if the potential benefits of smoking marijuana outweigh the known risks associated with the drug. The American Cancer Society also does not advocate the legalization of marijuana. Because many cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy today will survive their disease, the society's experts say patients would be unwise to increase risk of another cancer by smoking marijuana. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society also does not recommend the medical use of marijuana at this time.The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, however, lists more than two dozen national and state medical and health groups that support the use of marijuana as a medicine, including the AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Public Health Association.The ‘first seed' question The legal questions are as prickly as the medical arguments for supporters of the medicinal use of marijuana.The first and foremost issue is procurement, which has dogged the legislative effort to allow the medicinal use of marijuana.One reason no doctors have written prescriptions for marijuana since 1981 is that there is no legally available supply of it. There is also what has become known as the "first seed" question. If you allow seriously ill people to grow marijuana, they must obtain the seeds or plants illegally. Additionally, if you decriminalize possession of marijuana for them, many will buy it illegally, and that means putting money into the pockets of criminal groups. Marijuana is the most readily available illicit drug in Connecticut, and most of the state's supply comes from Mexico, according to the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.No representatives of law enforcement in Connecticut testified for or against the medicinal use of marijuana last session. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says marijuana has no medical value that cannot be met more effectively by legal drugs. The DEA also says advocates of broader legal drug use are using the medical argument as a "red herring" in order to advance their cause. Farr said he believes advocates of legalization are at work in Connecticut.Abrams said the legislative effort to carve out an exception to allow the medical use of marijuana is not about legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana for the public at large; it is about helping sick people.Federal law presents another obstacle. Physicians risk federal prosecution for prescribing marijuana and the loss of their medical license. However, Abrams said there have been encouraging developments in federal courts lately. In a California case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Dec. 10 that a federal law outlawing marijuana does not apply to sick people who are allowed to smoke pot with a doctor's recommendation. The Justice Department had argued that federal drug laws trumped state medical marijuana laws. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a 9th Circuit Court decision that barred the federal government from punishing physicians who recommend patients try marijuana.Abrams and Bacchiochi said it is too early for handicapping the chances of passing a medical marijuana bill in the 2004 session."I think people each year are getting more and more comfortable with the concept of marijuana being used legally within certain parameters," Bacchiochi said."I think if we can get it out of the Judiciary Committee, we have a decent chance of getting it through the House," Abrams said.The committee barely approved last session's bill 21-18. It only passed because several opponents missed the vote, and because two members promised Abrams to support it in committee. The Public Health Committee later approved the legislation in a 12-7 vote along party lines.The legislation last session had bipartisan support. "We have found this is not an issue that is Democrats versus Republicans, which is great," said Rook, of A Better Way Foundation. House Democrats were almost evenly divided last session, with supporters of medical marijuana slightly edging opponents. More than a third of the Republicans voted for the bill. The measure, however, failed 64-79. It needed 72 votes to pass.Advocates of the medicinal use of marijuana do not intend to give up the fight if they fail a fourth time in 2004."If it doesn't pass this year, it just really is a matter of time," Bacchiochi said.Source: Meriden Record-Journal, The (CT)Author: Paul Hughes, Record-Journal StaffPublished: December 22, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Record-JournalContact: letters record-journal.comWebsite: http://www.record-journal.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/A Better Way Foundationhttp://www.abwf-ct.org/Medical Marijuana Bill Dies In Househttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16356.shtmlHouse Just Says No To Pot as Rxhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16355.shtmlHouse Rejects Plan To Legalize Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16351.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by sukoi on December 22, 2003 at 12:12:05 PT
A little news and some articles
Just Say Yes
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/polls/article.jsp?content=20031229_72592_72592Students learn of moments of madness, lifetime of regret
http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/nj/index.ssf?/base/news-4/107208927573300.xmlPolice arrest 'online cannabis dealers'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34638.htmlAnd most of you probably know most if not all of what is in this next link, but there are some quotes from Anslinger and Hearst that I’ve never heard before. They are so ludicrous that they are almost funny, especially the one about Anslingers’ definition of the word “assassin” (although part of it is correct). I’ll bet that even Batman might like that one! (grin) Why is Marijuana Illegal?
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 11:14:33 PT
I'd like to spit in his arrogant face
"There is absolutely no reason for anybody to smoke marijuana," said Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, the ranking House Republican on the Judiciary Committee.Well well, here we have another ignoramus in a seat of power, drunk with that power and who doesn't have the slightest clue what the meaning of real freedom is. He thinks he can tell me, and my millions of compatriots, what I should and shouldn't do? Hey buddy check your title, you are a REPRESENTATIVE, you REPRESENT people, you do not have the authority to issue edicts and moral pronouncements like an Afghani warlord or 18th century monarch, you freekin' idiot. For you to tell your constituents (in other words, your EMPLOYERS, the people, moron) that there's no reason for them to smoke marijuana is like one of them telling you that there's no reason for you to breathe air. The normal reaction to such an arrogant announcement is to laugh and tell you to shut up and mind your own business.When will these power-tripping fascists die off already??
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by AlvinCool on December 22, 2003 at 10:49:17 PT
I should have listened
CRAP! I should have listened to the government, but instead I listened to you guys and look at the trouble I'm in. I woke up this morning and now I have BIG BREASTS. I want to say that using marijuana can lead to big breasts, they are not joking. This is no laughing matter.After that I told Cindy to get dressed and cover them up. I sure hope that tonight I have big breasts again, but what is certain in life?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by jose melendez on December 22, 2003 at 05:53:21 PT
Re: mayan's last question in comment #2
Not sure about state lawmaker funding, here's the info for CT reps and their top contributors, from: http://opengov.media.mit.edu/EX/0000/000/201/082/I say we forward Farr's comment to them, with proof of that deception.name
party
top contributor
ageChristopher J. Dodd
Democrat
Bear Stearns
59Joseph I. Lieberman
Democrat
Pfizer Inc
61John B. Larson
Democrat
United Technologies
55       
    
   
Write Congress: Reschedule Pot, or Resign.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 02:13:26 PT
JR Bob
Wow. I'm already pissed off heading to work this morning because of this article I just read... Now I hear that this stupid propoganda anti-marijuana joke has reached mainstream.......literally. God dang, American people need to WAKE THE FUC UP!!!!!!!!!WAKE UP!!!!!
WAKE DA FUC UP!!!!!
WAKE UP!!!!!Oh wait, that'll take a completely legal drug...coffee.Anyways, that was cool that you shouted "ARRESTED"....I'll probobly do the same thing when I see it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 22, 2003 at 01:59:16 PT
My ONDCPrecious...
Over the weekend I went to see Return of the King at a local Loew's cineplex, and while the movie was great, one thing I saw on that screen revolted me. Before the previews, in the ads (which are bad enough) they ran the ONDCP's "Swimming Pool" propaganda piece. I already pay for these counterproductive insults to be produced and aired via my tax dollars. Now I've just bought a ticket to one. I've never seen this drek on the big screen before, but I rarely go to Loew's, and I think this may be the last time for that. I wish I'd known it was coming, I would have shouted out the word "ARRESTED" when it says "STONED". Oh well. This film did have more pipe-weed in it than the Two Towers.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 01:53:23 PT
Farr
Again, it astonishes me how we as Americans let individuals like this have power in our country. Is this guy human? "There is absolutely no reason for anybody to smoke marijuana," Farr said.Marijuana advocates should tear this comment apart. Again, it is OBVIOUS that he is insulting the intelligence of the public. I truly feel he thinks we're stupid. And it's just irritating to read because of how blatantly wrong he is. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by mayan on December 22, 2003 at 00:52:40 PT
Ignorance
"There is absolutely no reason for anybody to smoke marijuana," said Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, the ranking House Republican on the Judiciary Committee.What an absured statement. I wonder, has Farr ever even smoked it?"The fact of the matter is there no medical use of marijuana," Farr said.An even more absurd statement. I wonder, is Farr a doctor?And just how much money does Farr take from pharmaceutical companies?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on December 21, 2003 at 22:48:24 PT
Liars lie and science sciences
"The fact of the matter is there no medical use of marijuana," Farr said.GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK has spent $10's of millions of dollars researching cannabis over the last five years in order to bring specific extracts to market. They have already proved the above statement a lie, they brag of the safety of the cannabinoids. THC may get a warning label warning of mild intoxication, but extracts void of that cannabinoid may well take Nol Van Shaik's advice and just say "Do not smoke these pills."The most important short read on the GW Pharma extracts is from an organization in the UK founded by Biz Ivol called thc4ms.org without the org. She suffers from MS and she broke the law to distribute cannabis chocolates to MS sufferers throughout the UK. The first trials and the first introduction of GW extracts was and should have been for MS. There is an incredible body of knowledge on what cannabis for MS and the UK government delayed the long anticipated introduction of GW extracts when the need was not justified. They can claim the reason Americans cannot buy medicine from Canada- they are protecting people. Well, if you study the cannabis issue, you can expect officialdomese to be completely upside down and the reality is they are all but inflicting pain and killing people. Biz Ivol had her trials in criminal court and said ahe would rather die than suffer without the aid of cannabis.So I would learn that you are being lied to by a liar. You should read the words of the man than is a doctor that chose to devote his efforts of bringing cannabinoids into the legal realm. This is a compact read, but at least is sincere and true- http://www.parklandtrading.com/users/thc4ms/gwupdate.php
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment