cannabisnews.com: Push To Legalize Medicinal Pot Stalls in Congress





Push To Legalize Medicinal Pot Stalls in Congress
Posted by CN Staff on August 22, 2004 at 09:06:41 PT
By Peter Urban
Source: Connecticut Post 
Washington -- Advocates for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes have seen their efforts go largely up in smoke on Capitol Hill. No votes have been held or are contemplated to legalize medicinal marijuana by the House or Senate, although voters in several states are considering measures to make it easier to use marijuana for legitimate medical purposes.
The House, meanwhile, in July rejected an amendment to block the Justice Department from prosecuting medicinal marijuana users in states where it is legal.The House voted 268 to 148 against the amendment. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, voted in favor. Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, opposed it."I don't like that type of approach, where you are basically preventing the feds from enforcing the law. Change the law if you don't like the law," Shays said. According to a University of Connecticut poll conducted this summer, about 83 percent of state residents support making use of marijuana legal for legitimate medical purposes.Shays said he might support legislation to allow marijuana to be used to alleviate pain, but only if it included "very strict requirements.""I don't want to turn upside-down restrictions on marijuana," he said.DeLauro said that as a cancer survivor she understands the "intense desire" to pursue every option for easing patient pain and suffering."If the use of medicinal marijuana can be medically proven to bring relief to patients, we should examine the possibility of making it available under strictly controlled circumstances," she said. "Then we can provide comfort to seriously ill patients without weakening our tough stand against drugs."Although the issue has not come up in their chamber, Connecticut's senators say they favor decriminalizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes although they would not favor legalizing it for recreational use.Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., believes "it is humane and sensible" to allow limited, doctor-supervised use of marijuana to treat medical conditions when other options don't work, said Casey Aden-Wansbury, a spokeswoman for the senator."He also believes that drug enforcement agents should enforce the law but not aggressively target medical users," she said.Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., believes that marijuana should be available to alleviate pain and suffering for seriously ill people and that federal drug enforcement agents should not interfere with doctors or other health providers who seek to provide such treatment, according to his staff.Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, said that Congress is "almost definitely" not going to take up medicinal marijuana legislation before the November elections.Despite the inaction, Fox said there has been progress made in convincing more lawmakers of the benefit of medicinal marijuana as well as the need to set priorities for federal law enforcement agents when it comes to this issue.Fox points out that federal law enforcement agents have carried out raids on individuals and cooperatives that cultivate or possess marijuana for medicinal purposes.On Sept. 23, 2002, federal drug agents in Oregon seized marijuana plants being cultivated under state license by a 52-year-old quadriplegic for medicinal purposes. Fox said that federal agents have also gone after similar medicinal marijuana operations in California, where state law also permits it.The battle over medical marijuana is being fought largely on the state level since Congress has failed to act. Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have exempted qualified patients from criminal prosecution for the possession and use of medicinal marijuana when recommended by their physician.Connecticut law allows physicians to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes but doctors have been reluctant to do so given federal prohibitions. There was legislation this year to remove doctors from any legal liability but that effort fell short. The issue will likely resurface next year."I think we're in good shape," said state Rep. Jim Abrams, D-Meriden, the chief sponsor of the state bill.The bill would allow certified patients, with the approval of their physician, to cultivate and use marijuana for medicinal purposes."Since 1981, it has been legal in Connecticut for doctors to write prescriptions for marijuana but they [physicians] are afraid [U.S. Attorney General] John Ashcroft will come kick the door down if they do," Abrams said.Meanwhile, there's a bumper crop of marijuana initiatives on local and state ballots this fall, according to Paul Armentano, a senior policy analyst for The NORML Foundation.* Alaskan voters will decide if marijuana should be decriminalized for "medicinal, recreational or industrial" use. It would also encourage the state legislature to regulate marijuana, as it regulates alcohol or tobacco.* Montana voters will decide if qualified patients can possess and cultivate marijuana for medicinal purposes.* In Oregon, voters will likely decide whether the state's existing medicinal marijuana law should be amended to allow patients to possess up to 10 marijuana plants or one pound of usable marijuana.* In Arkansas, proponents of medicinal marijuana are still seeking petition signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.* Voters in Oakland, Calif., will decide if municipal guidelines should make enforcement of marijuana offenses the city's "lowest law enforcement priority." A similar proposal may be on the ballot in Tallahassee, Fla.Medicinal marijuana proposals are also on ballot in Ann Arbor and Detroit, Mich.There is also a regulatory effort under way to get the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to stop medicinal marijuana drug raids.A coalition of health and drug law reform organizations filed an administrative petition in October 2002 to have DEA reclassify marijuana so that doctors could prescribe it legally.Petition organizers claim to have provided extensive scientific evidence on marijuana's potential therapeutic uses that would allow for a lower classification under the federal Controlled Substance Act.This month, DEA asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a scientific and medical evaluation of marijuana as part of a reassessment of its scheduling under the federal Controlled Substance Act.The regulatory approach has been taken in the past and failed.NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, filed a similar rescheduling petition with the DEA in 1972. Sixteen years later, a DEA administrative law judge ruled that marijuana should be reclassified but the DEA administrator rejected the judge's determination a decision that the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed in 1994.Source: Connecticut Post (CT)Author: Peter UrbanPublished: Sunday, August 22, 2004 Copyright: 2004 MediaNews Group, Inc.Contact: swinters ctpost.comWebsite: http://www.connpost.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Opinions Mixed in Region on Legalizing Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19380.shtmlMarijuana Reform To Tap Grassroots http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19284.shtmlCongress Shoots Down Hinchey Amendmenthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19159.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #24 posted by billos on August 23, 2004 at 05:46:00 PT
Shays opposed and said............................
"I don't like that type of approach, where you are basically preventing the feds from enforcing the law. Change the law if you don't like the law," Shays said. Well, Big Shot, how the hell do we change the laws when the lawmakers won't even debate the marijuana issue? They seem to ignore any referendum and any pro voice no matter how loud it screams. I don't get it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on August 22, 2004 at 20:59:19 PT
Thank You Virgil
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19382.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Virgil on August 22, 2004 at 20:26:56 PT
Drug Policy Alliance and the Repug convention
The NYT has an article dated August 23 concerning the Drug Policy Alliance and the upcoming Republican Convention in New York City- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/23/business/23mary.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by The GCW on August 22, 2004 at 18:59:03 PT
Murder because Cannabis isn't legal?
CN ON: Man Killed In Keswick Pot Househttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1198/a05.html?397Thu, 19 Aug 2004 Police Investigators Remain Tight-Lipped On Cause Of Death Homicide investigators scoured the scene of a "suspicious death" in a marijuana grow house in Keswick yesterday. Investigators would not confirm the cause of a man's death at a Ley Boulevard home near The Queensway and Morton Avenue. However, neighbour Bradley Martins, 17, said he heard a loud argument and what sounded like gunshots coming from the house just after 2 a.m. yesterday. "I was watching TV with my girlfriend and we heard loud yelling, like an argument. We put the TV on mute to listen to it. I heard shouting, then there was a loud gunshot. I heard a woman screaming and a guy was yelling back and then another shot," he said. "I didn't know if I was tired and just hearing things or what, but it sounded like somebody got shot." Neighbour Cathy Gordon also said she heard what sounded like gunshots and people running down the street just after 2 a.m.  
Cont.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on August 22, 2004 at 18:40:34 PT
GoldenLung, Song
Perhaps you mean the post I made the other day to your comment on the article, I believe it was entitled The Benefits of Marijuana.I was listening to Bob Dylan and when Subterranean Homesick Blues came on...it made me think of you. It's a good song. I like it anyway. You probably won't care for it if you can't play it on a decent sound system.http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/subterranean.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by The GCW on August 22, 2004 at 18:38:15 PT
Attention getter:
CN BC: Pot Raid Riles Residentshttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1198/a08.html?397Tue, 17 Aug 2004 (did this come up already?)Regional district directory calls RCMP operation that blew out windows in one house 'abuse and harassment' RCMP officers combed Texada Island on Monday, August 16 looking for marijuana plants, much to the outrage of many residents. Dave Murphy, Powell River Regional District director for Texada Island, said the operation was a "belligerent assault on our community. It was provocative. It was distasteful. It was aggressive. It was sadistic. It was very bad. They blew windows out in one house." Murphy said his property was buzzed by a helicopter. "For an hour they hovered above the house and the garden. Not only here, but many places on Texada. It was just a belligerent, aggressive assault." Murphy has received many phone calls from irate islanders, he said. "People are up in arms here. There's talk of a town hall meeting. There's talk of marching on the RCMP station in Gillies Bay. It was an abuse and harassment of 1,000 residents here." Elaine Purgavie, who owns 53 acres on Texada, said the helicopters buzzed her house so closely she could have thrown a rock into the window. "I felt like what it would be like in a war zone," she said. "They flew so low, they were right on top of my house. That sound is so unnerving. It goes right in your heart. I can't even describe how upsetting it is." Cont.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Virgil on August 22, 2004 at 18:26:33 PT
Fred Gardner writes again
This Fred Gardner has come out of nowhere to write some articles that center around cannabis at CounterPunch. He wrote an article titled "The Cannabis Consultants- Dr. Wolman Comes Out."- http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner08212004.htmlThe article is about a physician in California giving a speech on his persecution for being a California doctor that recommended cannabis in his practice. It speaks of the actions of the federal government to stop the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Golden Lung on August 22, 2004 at 18:20:15 PT:
Song
What was the name of that song someone wanted me to hear. Oh yeah, my dad wrote that stuff about God or whatever I signed in and went outside, he told me to disconnect, I ignored the order and punished me in a very creative. I applaud him for that. P.S. I'm not Christian anyway
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Golden Lung on August 22, 2004 at 18:13:22 PT:
Alcohol Prohibition and Repeal
 Someone mention the repeal. So I'm going to throw a little more in. It ain't just another conspiracy among the dozens the government has thrown among us, it's the truth.                                                                                       Alcohol was prohibited in 1920 and was repealed in 1933. From my perspective, it looks this Alcohol Prohibition and Repeal had major role in something planned by the government years before, immediately post-World War I: The Great Depression. You might be wondering "Why would the government plan such things that are so bad for their fellow Americans?" Well, The Great Depression caused the highest unemployment rate in the Industrial American history. Americans would take any job, no matter how strenous, for a little bit of money. They could be a bartender, but it was prohibited in 1920. So what would an American do to support to his family. He would take any job thrown at him.                                                                                                                      Did you know The Hoover Dam and The Golden Gate Bridge and Mount Rushmore all began construction on the brink or during The Great Depression? They needed workers. So why not hire workers for low pay? The Government needed to focus on the material cost. Hire Americans who would work cheaply.                                                                                      I'm not saying th Alcohol Prohibition was the cause of The Great Depression, but I am saying that the government prohibited it so that Americans couldn't rely on alcohol to make money without being punished. So the government offered jobs for low pay because Hoover had an expensive birthday presents.                                                                                      When The Depression was at the very bottom, the federal government said "Hey, you know what would bring up the economy, ALCOHOL!" The states couldn't refuse it and ratified Alcohol Prohibition Repeal Amendment. And alcohol was legal again 1933. Just another way of the government getting what it wants in the sneakiess way. Of course that would probably be the only way all the shit was built. Maybe the government tried it again in 1937 with marijuana. I guess stoners were to unorganized to make a corporate business so it didn't really affect commoners. If there was only a Second Great Depression we would have alot more stuff built and marijuana would be legal for the gift to Americans for all the hard work, if there was only......
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Virgil on August 22, 2004 at 16:39:27 PT
Big article
It is not often that Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair team up for a CounterPunch article. This weekend is an exception with an article titled, " "They Want Blood"-
The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Total War on Drugs,Cockburn has written a book on the drug wars called "Whiteout"- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859842585/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/104-1781625-8202369 I recently read where someone credited Cockburn for writing the best piece of nonfiction in the 1980s. The book was about the falseness of believing the Soviets were leading the arms race that Reagan used to explode the budget. It had a one word title like "Deceived" or "Deception." Of course CounterPunch is my favorite website for original content and Cockburn is my favorite writer. Maybe if you read this piece, you might see why- http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08212004.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by siege on August 22, 2004 at 15:30:55 PT
        !!!!
boogeyman D E A out to pasture in the WAR ZONE in Iraq and let them play bad ASs there and see how many come back god help them not.
let them have a taste of the gooood live!
and send the bad politicians that give ((hsub)) that power.Oldies but goodies lawsuits: Attorneys we did not have that many that would step up and do it. American Civil Liberties Union was just coming in to the seen and started the ball rolling.
Attorneys are more assertive/aggressive know.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by mamawillie on August 22, 2004 at 15:03:29 PT
Internet
Good God! I can't believe I didn't think of the internet. lol. I guess it is hard to imagine that 10 years ago was the first time I had seen the net in action. It is hard to remember that the internet wasnt' around back then!An international exchange of ideas.....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by The GCW on August 22, 2004 at 14:02:14 PT
Without reading the article or comments...
Make note:It is the ballot that gets these initiatives their breath.The people haven't failed.The politicians have.Give Us the vote.Of course, HAWAII. On their own!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by runruff on August 22, 2004 at 13:15:37 PT:
why?
Golden lung,The answer to your question has become so multi-layered and buried in lies and deception it would not be easy to answer your question here. Understand this basic principle and you will begin to understand much. In goverment everything comes down to power and money. Forget principals, etheics, stated reasons or even reasoning as we know it. These things are used only as arguable tools to achive power and money. Everything in politics boils down to finance. Money is the mothers milk of politics. poly means many. Ticks are blood suckers. There you have the meaning of politics. American politics are conrolled almost exclusivly by lawyers. That is how government has become so self serving and perverted. The constitution prohibits lawyers from running for office in American politics so most of our elected officals are there illigally. In large part it is the puplic at large who are asleep at the wheel. Wolves opperate most effectivly in the dark. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Virgil on August 22, 2004 at 13:07:25 PT
Empire v Internet
There is no force like the Internet in the history of man. It is the Internet that lets photos and information cross the continents without the censorship of political correctness and it controlled media. That power of the Internet is destructive to the cause of Empire as if the rest of the world was not force enough.I try to read Zmag.org regularly and it is obvious that the prime issue before the world is Empire or as the media whores say, American hegemony. There is a sharp rise in the use of the word Empire. It is a critical step in the fall of prohibition to tie reform into the biggest issue before the world- Empire.Sometimes I talk about reformers getting their words together. There could be no more word in the vocabulary of a reformer than Empire. On that front we see that the intellectuals have now summarizing world events with the word Empire. The world is getting its words together on the biggest of world problems and the fall from grace of the American Empire has a direct consequence on a US lead global prohibition by means of the UN.It is Empire that choses to define freedom in such restricting terms and it is freedom that it is at the heart of the reform movement for cannabis legalization. To change the definition of freedom to a more acceptable form the world is going to deal with the Empire. The Empire has done well while it had media that could project a reality in one way programming. Now it is a two-way street with the Internet.What links Iraq to CP is the overt act of physical colonization. It was Empire going for an impregnable defense as it sought to control the world by controlling the oil. The world sees naked aggression and now there is warmongering over Iran that has 40% of the known natural gas in the world. The Internet v Empire was interesting to watch before, but now that the mask is off, it is truly a time to be for Empire or against Empire.The question is just now forming, but soon it will be the question of the day. For now the question is not now to be or not to be. The question before us is whether to see or not to see the Empire. We will see the warmongering against Iran continue despite which branch of the one party system comes to office. Can you see Empire? Can you say Empire?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on August 22, 2004 at 12:30:56 PT
dididadadidit 
I agree we have more of a chance with a Democratic administration. My sister is a Republican. She totally supports what I am doing here. We had a visit the other day and stopped and watched the news a minute when a poll came on that put Kerry ahead of Bush. It bummed her out. I talked to her about Kerry and showed her how we are going after the Poppies in Afghanistan (sp) and she shook her head and said why! She left that day feeling better about Kerry and actually said that maybe Kerry is what our country needs. She admitted that Bush isn't very good at the job. That was a remarkable comment since she is a life long Republican.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 22, 2004 at 12:21:33 PT
mamawillie
From the 70s to when Reagan was elected it was like a limbo time. You thought that maybe the laws would change but you just weren't sure. The Internet is our life line. That's what will make the difference I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by dididadadidit on August 22, 2004 at 12:19:48 PT
Why? Prohibition (Alcohol) Repealed
Simple bureaucratic inertia could certainly be a factor. Here you had this great force of federal agents to deal with the moonshiners and illegal trafficers of booze. Then the Democrats got back in power and the suck up to the religious fundies practiced by the Rethugnicans was put out to pasture for a few decades with the 21st amendment, nullifying the 18th, and making alcohol once again legal.What to do with all these federal agents with no longer any job to do? Whip up a new boogeyman and give them something to do. Even FDR could easily go along, it was after all a time of depression, and putting these agents out to pasture would only add to the unemployment.Now here we are about 70 years later with the Repugs in charge of everything working on completion of a fascist police state. Unlike alcohol, we can't have a constitutional amendment repealing the insanity, as no amendment enabling legal persecution of cannabis was ever passed, just legislated against without a constitional OK. The foregoing, IMHO, grounds for challenge in the supreme court on the precedent that alcohol had to be constitutionally targeted before legislation against it could be valid. Without similar constitutional singling out of cannabis, all legislation against it should be unconstitutional.Bureaucratic inertia is just as prevalent now as in the 30's and is certainly a factor in perpetuating todays insanity. Whatta ya gonna do with those employed in the prison industrial complex if you knock out one of the main props under the drug war?Democrats have over the decades been no better than Repigs, having as their only campaign stategy, "What can we do to outstupid the Rethugs on Cannabis (drugs in general) to show our tough on crime credentials." Fortunately, a glimmer of hope is starting to show with the Dems as evidenced by their 2 to 1 votes this year and last on house amendments to deny funding to the DEA to hassle med patients, their doctors and providers in states that are allowing such by state law. The "compassionate" conservatives on the Repig side of the asile can't get out of single digit in their alleged compassion, voting over 90% against the amendment both years.Finally, someone (Dems) is (are) starting to read the polls. Reward them for it. Throw Rethugs out of office in large numbers, starting with the disaster that stole the white house and working on down into both house and senate.We stand a much better chance of working our issues with rewarded Dems than trying to convert the fascists supporting "Where's AWOLdo" on the Repig side of the isle.Long time ago Goldwater Republican (before Pat Robertson, Jerky Foulsmell and the Bu$co Cabal took over the party) and decades long Libertarian, planning to vote Democratic on a party line ticket for the first time ever.Cheers? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on August 22, 2004 at 12:13:45 PT
mamawillie
I'll try to answer. No lawsuits weren't tried as far as I know. I had no contact with any reform organizations until I got on line and found web sites. I knew of NORML but that was the only organization that I ever heard of back then. I just assumed the laws were going to be changed soon in the 70s. When Reagan was elected I thought well it will be a long time until laws change. The boomers are coming of age as far as politics go. They have clout now. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mamawillie on August 22, 2004 at 12:08:04 PT
Oldies but goodies
I have questions for those who were toking in the 60s and 70s....In regards to trying to make change through lawsuits:1) Do you percieve that people are more assertive/aggressive these days in trying to find ways to FORCE change?2) If so, do you think it is because the judges have "come of age" so to speak.. in other words, the old staunch ones have died off and today's judges may have experimented, so they know better?3) Did it occur to people back then to try suing for change?I'm just trying to get some perspective. Obviously, each generation is going to build on the foundation laid by the last generation. So is it simply a question that the changes we have seen recently are a result of the work of the eariler generations, or do you think people just got sick and tired of waiting around for the "change fairy" to come around? Or did the assertiveness start with the formation of organizations such as NORML?Any comments/experiences/thoughts/perspectives?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on August 22, 2004 at 11:45:22 PT
Golden Lung
In some ways, you could say that prohibition has been more successful in restricting hemp use and its medical applications. No matter how you look at it, the government has failed on its prohibition of recreational use.Here are a few links to get you started. The easiest way to explain cannabis prohibition is that Anslinger wanted an agency to rival the size and influence of the FBI that would lift him in status to the god-like recognition of J. Edgar Hoover. Cannabis is not popular for no reason and bringing cannabis into the prohibition tent only meant a growth in bureaucracy, budget, and power for Anslinger. Cannabis Prohibition was more than mission creep. It was a leap in the mission of Anslinger and company.http://www.sumeria.net/politics/invpro.htmlhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/16/thread16685.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on August 22, 2004 at 10:44:38 PT
Golden Lung
You can use CNews search tool and find plenty of information to help answer your question. I recommend using google too. I get plenty of answers using google.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Golden Lung on August 22, 2004 at 10:40:24 PT:
why?
Would someone please answer this question: Why was pot made illegal in the first place?//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////The only answers placed by the government I know of is: Parents didn't want there teens smoking it, quote from Anslinger "it made darkies think they were white", you would kill your brother with an axe. The only one that still stands is parents didn't want there teens smoking it. They don't want their teens smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol but those are still legal. So why is it illegal, why was it made illegal in the first place?  Why is medical marijuana okay but recreational isn't? If it is helpful, why is it illegal? What is wrong with some drugs being okay? Someone please answer these. PLEASE
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on August 22, 2004 at 10:33:17 PT
Harm
The big thing about the federal government and MMJ is probably the overreach of federal power that the Constitution sought to limit. Still up there is the Schedule One Lie concerning cannabis.There are three criteria that intellectually must be met for a schedule 1 classification. It must meet all three and it is an obvious failure to anyone that reads here that the criteria that it has no medical value is true farce. The second requirement has to do with addiction/abuse and it is that criteria that makes a person chose between classification is Schedule 4 or Schedule 5. I can see how you could say it could be somehow abused depending on the definition of abuse. I can also see how a person could claim it is not physically addictive and qualifies for Schedule 5.The third criteria has to do with harm. What makes this criteria so laughable is that the federal government says that it is too dangerous to allow even under a physicians care. What makes it laughable is that there are hundreds of millions of people that get along fine without any doctors care/supervision at all.The federal government has ignored the Constitution in spreading its laws in every denial of cannabis use and it ignores its own guidelines so that there can be a blanket prohibition that would hide the truth that cannabis is a miracle plant that can have the word benign associated with it when not smoked and that all of cannabis prohibition has been a giant hoax.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment