cannabisnews.com: Vermont Ready To Make Medical Marijuana Legal Vermont Ready To Make Medical Marijuana Legal Posted by CN Staff on June 30, 2004 at 13:23:43 PT By United Press International Source: United Press International Washington, DC -- Vermont residents are set to join the growing but still exclusive club made up of people who can use medical marijuana without the fear of arrest.A new state law taking effect July 1 ends state sanctions for persons using marijuana for medical purposes, something supporters of the liberalization of U.S. anti-marijuana laws hailed as major victory. "The effort to protect medical marijuana patients continues to build momentum," Steve Fox, the director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project said Wednesday."The victory in Vermont comes on top of recent endorsements of medical marijuana laws," he said, and called on the U.S. Congress "to put an end to this cruel war on the sick."When the law goes into effect Thursday, Vermont will become the ninth state to extend legal protection to medical marijuana users. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington all have similar laws.Source: United Press InternationalPublished: June 30, 2004Copyright 2004 United Press InternationalContact: tips upi.comWebsite: http://www.upi.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmMedical Pot OK'd; Session Ending Today http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18880.shtmlMedical Marijuana Bill Will Become Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18878.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #25 posted by afterburner on July 01, 2004 at 08:53:51 PT cloud7, Thanks for Posting Dr. Andrew Weil ' I now realize that altered secondary perception of sensory information is intrinsic to all altered states of consciousness, whether triggered by drugs or not. Therefore, it no longer seems profitable to me to try to understand how marijuana "causes" the effect. In addition, I no longer subscribe to the negative hypothesis that marijuana interferes with normal processing of perceptual data. Rather, I observe that in altered states of consciousness, one frequently gains the ability to interpret his perceptions in new ways and that this ability seems to be the key to freedom from bondage to the senses. For example, hypnotic anesthesia is nothing more than another way of perceiving pain. The patient, fully aware but in a state of focused consciousness, learns the "trick" of separating the pain itself from his reaction to it. He is thus free to perceive the pain in a novel way - something going on "out there" but not hurting. (One hypnotist I know produces this state with the suggestion that "the hurt is going out of the pain.") ' Do any medical cannabis patients here experience this conscious " 'trick' of separating the pain itself from [your]/his reaction to it" in your treatment sessions?Did you catch the poster too?: shadow2 http://deoxy.org/pdfa/shadow2.jpg [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:58:05 PT cloud7 That was very good. I really like and value Dr. Weil's opinion.I took these sentences out of the article to make a point. You don't ever read how cannabis can help stop people from fighting by forgetting what they are fighting about...It says:This change manifests itself in two ways: as a tendency to forget what one started out to say, especially following an interruption, and a tendency to go off on irrelevant tangents. A person high on marijuana seems to have difficulty remembering what happened in the past few seconds. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 17:45:38 PT ... Here's the last half of the chapter if you are interested in reading it: http://deoxy.org/pdfa/marijuana.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:36:15 PT cloud7 Woody Guthrie wrote that in the year I was born too. How ironic. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 17:36:10 PT "Cannabis is just the same as a placebo" Interesting that you would say this, have you read Andrew Weil's The Natural Mind? He said the best way he could describe cannabis is as an active placebo."A substance whose apparent effects on the mind are actually placebo effects in response to minimal physiological action" [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:33:35 PT cloud7 Oh that was really good! Thanks! I was born in Winston-Salem! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 17:30:01 PT This song might be appropriate now! http://www.walterindenver.com/archives/000417.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:24:38 PT cloud7 Thanks for telling me how it is. I really get upset when it comes to medical marijuana issues. I get upset when someone is denied what they need to help them cope with pain. No one lives in our bodies so how can anyone tell us what helps us or not? Everyone should have a right to make decisions over their own existence. Legal drugs kill people everyday but cannabis hasn't killed anyone. Why do they have a problem because at the very least Cannabis is just the same as a placebo. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by mayan on June 30, 2004 at 17:18:02 PT UK Drug Testing... Sorry, unrelated...Rise in drugs tests at work 'has no effect on safety': http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=536318 The way out is the way in...Ashcroft faces 9/11 whistleblower secrets probe: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-06-27-ashcroft.php9/11 Cover-up Two-Page Summary: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up9/11 Cover-up Ten-Page Summary: http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg 9/11 - The Big Lie: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=315&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 17:14:40 PT ... Another reason there are so many ridiculous laws is that they are no longer based on the need to punish someone for the consequences of negative actions, but to preemptively punish someone for something they might do. Basically, the expansion of victimless crime laws. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:13:41 PT cloud7 I know you're right. Just the way my thoughts are jumping around today shows me how upset this has me. I want to really say don't even think about stopping us but I can't do that so instead I go round in circles and finally understand that I don't understand. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 17:08:12 PT ... "When you have no option but to drive thru Virginia what are you suppose to do with your radar detector?"I was going to say take the long route, but with no option I would just drive carefully! There's really not too much to say, if something isnt allowed in a state you just cant do it. "Who makes these laws anyway and why?"Busybodies who are helping to make everyone guilty of somthing to ease us into a police state. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:06:55 PT cloud7 This whole issue made me think of some of the laws and how they don't make any sense to me. Do this, don't do thatCan't you read the signs? [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:04:40 PT One More It's against the law to drive a semi-truck thru a tunnel if it is carrying hazardous material in at least some states. In some states you have to go thru tunnels because that is the only way to go. Who makes these laws anyway and why? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 17:02:42 PT FoM He'd be guilty of possession (HA!) in the state that had banned them. I think this is what you were asking, but maybe I misunderstood? [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 17:01:33 PT Radar Detectors That's another tricky one. It's against the law ( or it was a few years back ) to have in your possession a radar detector in Virginia but not in other states. When you have no option but to drive thru Virginia what are you suppose to do with your radar detector? [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 16:57:50 PT cloud7 Some states have laws that allow firworks to be sold and some states don't. If a person buys firworks in a state that it's legal and takes them into a state that they are against the law where does the person stand if stopped in a state that doesn't allow them even if purchased in a state that allows them to be sold? That seems very complicated to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 16:48:15 PT more... When I said "commerce lie," I know the constitution allows the fed gov't to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..," but like usual the government has gone way above and beyond the clause's original intentions to expand federal power and micromanage our lives. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by cloud7 on June 30, 2004 at 16:35:38 PT FoM "What laws use Interstate Commerce to make them work? If the court ruled in our favor would it bring down many laws? What I'm concerned about is they might find a reason to say no if it would make hard drugs legal too if not transported over state lines. Am I wrong?"All the federal laws concerning guns are also based on this commerce lie. If they ruled broadly (correctly) enough concerning the CSA, the *federal* laws against hard drugs would also be struck down. The states would still be free to have laws outlawing hard drugs just like there are dry counties. I dont think you need to worry about too many federal laws being struck down. The illusion of 3 branches of government is just that and one branch will seldom deny power to any other. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 16:15:08 PT Never Mind I Am Wrong It's Interstate Commerce not Transport. What does Interstate Commerce cover? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 15:55:59 PT Interstate Transport What laws use Interstate Transport to make them work? If the court ruled in our favor would it bring down many laws? What I'm concerned about is they might find a reason to say no if it would make hard drugs legal too if not transported over state lines. Am I wrong? I do not understand laws very well. I only understand what I feel about a law. I know that when we transported horses over state lines we needed proof of a valid Coggins Test. That's a good thing because Equine Infectious Anemia is like AIDS in horses and is always fatal. It is contracted by mosquitos. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Dr Ganj on June 30, 2004 at 15:17:43 PT States' Rights? Now let's see here. We now have 9 nine states that have laws that allow medical marijuana to be used for a variety of ailments. However, under federal law any use of marijuana, medical, or otherwise is illegal. How in the world can this mess be finally resolved? Is it fair that nine Supreme Court justices vote so thousands of sick people can finally have their herbal medicine without fear of being arrested? Is it fair that nine Supreme Court justices vote to make it illegal for sick people in the 9th circuit jurisdiction to use medical marijuana? What's really frustrating, is how many times when I got busted (and it's been a lot) did the police tell me; "If you don't like the laws, then have them changed". Well, the people in seven states have voted to change the laws, and they were changed, only to have the Department of Justice appeal those laws to the Supreme Court-which only has nine judges. Tell me where it's fair that 9 judges can make it illegal for thousands of sick people trying to use an herb for self healing. Why should we bother voting to change our laws that we don't like, if in the end nine people make the final say? Oh, and don't think for one moment the nine judges will vote to assist people using medical marijuana. Not a chance. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has not been pierced in more than 30 years, and it's not going to be any time soon. I think the only way to win is to thwart all the drug laws, grow as much marijuana as possible, teach as many as possible to grow marijuana, and if you or anyone you know gets into legal trouble, you and they have an obligation to take their case(s) to trial. Never plea bargain, never cower in fear. Let the jury decide if growing a beautful plant is a good enough reason to put you in jail. I often wonder if we're all finally in jail-is that when the war on drugs will have been won?See you all in court, or in chow line, take your pick. http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/fac_prison_SQ.asp [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Virgil on June 30, 2004 at 15:04:41 PT Federal hegemony must be preserved I was optomistic that the Canadian Supreme Court would do the right thing, but they gave a political answer that ignored the basic definition of a crime that says someone must harm someone else.We already have a federal tyranny that ignores the states and their voters, their own guidelines for classifying substances. They ignore the 4 out of 5 citizens that know cannabis has a place as a nutraceutical. They ignore science and even history. We can see as we terrorize the world with our CIA and trade agreements signed by puppets of American Imperialists, that law means nothing and we are not ruled by law as they would have us believe. We are ruled by power from the concentrations of wealth and those they put on the bench to interpret the laws and their servants in Congress that make the laws.I know for sure that Jefferson could never believe hemp would get him arrested and his plantation taken away and that he would never comprehend that Virginia universities and government could not research cannabis or any other plant it thought might improve the health and well-being of Joe and Jane Citizen. We may have had a republic, but we do not have one now. We have a polyarchy where the corporations filter out all unacceptable candidates and people are afforded the honor and illusion of chosing a face they like.Look at what recently happened with the federal banks. States were told they had no say in commerce of federal banks in their own state. That should tell you that the Corporate States of America is now official. To restore unalienable rights will require a new revolution. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by global_warming on June 30, 2004 at 14:13:23 PT Not whithout a fight The anti's will never give up without a fight, they will use every diabolical excuse in the book to pervail. The hopeless bastards from the eternal night will continue to march into hell with their flags waving proud, holding their bibles, they truly believe that prisons and torture are the correct way to behave.We can only pray for these wretched souls, as this story unfolds, the decisions ultimately rest in the hands of the people, the true legacy of this universe, as civilization evolves, so to the minds and souls of all life. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 30, 2004 at 13:27:12 PT Now What? The news is so confusing. It seems like we're winning and at the same time maybe not. I guess soon we'll know where we stand. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment