cannabisnews.com: Creating a Sensible Marijuana Law










  Creating a Sensible Marijuana Law

Posted by CN Staff on November 22, 2007 at 06:28:56 PT
By Lester Grinspoon M.D. 
Source: Boston Globe  

USA -- Almost half of American adults have tried marijuana, and the number of people who use it regularly has increased to about 15 million. This expanding use of marijuana can no longer be dismissed as simply a youthful fad that can be eliminated through the war on drugs.Still, marijuana arrests account for nearly 44 percent of all drug arrests in the United States. According to the Uniform Crime Report, nearly 830,000 people were arrested in 2006 on marijuana charges, nearly a 15 percent increase over 2005. Nine out of 10 were arrested for mere possession.
Despite the increasing threat of arrest, the growing demands of employers for urine tests, and the ubiquity of the misinformation purveyed by the US government and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the number of Americans who experiment with or regularly use this substance continues to grow. So many people have discovered its remarkably limited toxicity and its versatility as a medicine that 12 states have now adopted legislation or initiatives that allow for its medicinal use and 12 states have decriminalized it by reducing penalties for possession of small quantities to a fine, with no arrest or jail penalty.Massachusetts is considering decriminalizing minor marijuana offenses, with both proposed legislation and a proposed voter initiative. An out-of-state group has been collecting signatures for the voter initiative. Despite my agreement with the goal of eliminating criminal penalties for minor marijuana offenses, I oppose the initiative as it has been drafted.The initiative reduces the penalty for possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana to a fine of $100, but it actually establishes a new offense. The sponsors should withdraw it and replace it with a more thoughtfully worded version.The new offense is internal possession of marijuana metabolites. Anyone discovered to have any of these metabolites in his body fluids or hair would be prosecutable.However, like many other chemicals that are fat-soluble, these metabolites are excreted slowly, often long after their capacity to exert any psychoactive effect has disappeared. For example, an individual who has smoked marijuana on a Saturday night might have a positive urine test when she reports for work on Monday morning even though there is no evidence that she is "high."If she has used it every night, in much the same way others have a daily alcoholic drink after work, her urine would test positive for at least a month after the last smoke. Currently no such offense exists under Massachusetts law; an individual today cannot be charged with any offense simply because he has inactive THC metabolites in his system. The existence of these metabolites in the body does not signify impairment; their presence simply establishes a history of having used marijuana in the past.A second flaw in the initiative that should be corrected is the definition of marijuana as limited to cannabis sativa that contains no more than 2.5 percent THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana.Most marijuana ranges from 8 to 15 percent THC, and any initiative must redefine marijuana as the flowers and leaves of the cannabis sativa plant without THC limitation. Instead, the drafters of the initiative have responded to this inadequate definition of marijuana by drafting language that would decriminalize up to an ounce of the far more potent pure THC, perhaps an unintended result of trying to make the initiative compatible with the present statute.Overall, the wording makes the initiative defective and vulnerable, a vulnerability that would surely be exploited by the drug warriors as they attempt to build opposition to this proposal should it eventually make the ballot.So let's reject this fatally flawed proposal and work with the Legislature for a well-drafted law that would effectively decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana by adults in Massachusetts. If that doesn't happen by early 2009, another well-drafted initiative, one that would truly free adults to use this drug responsibly, would be in order.Dr. Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is author of "Marijuana Reconsidered" and coauthor of "Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine."Source: Boston Globe (MA)Author:    Lester Grinspoon M.D.Published: November 22, 2007 Copyright: 2007 Globe Newspaper CompanyContact: letter globe.comWebsite: http://www.boston.com/globe/Related Articles & Web Site:Dr. Lester Grinspoon M.D.http://www.marijuana-uses.com/Lesser Charges Sought for Marijuana Possessionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23493.shtmlMarijuana as Wonder Drughttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22698.shtml An Interview With Lester Grinspoon, M.D.http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21197.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help







 


Comment #40 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 19:43:40 PT

Taylor121
I didn't think they did. I don't like the clause. Are we going to keep giving up more of our rights while we try to get the law changed? What's the purpose? I don't want them coming to my state to try to write an Initiative. My husband must drug test and it really is hard to handle. If they had a fair test of impairment that would be acceptable but they don't.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #39 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 19:38:19 PT

Nope FoM
"I think the drug testing industry and insurance companies want this clause. The insurance companies can blame cannabis in case of an accident and often that decreases the amount of money they have to pay out in a law suit. "They may want the clause, but they didn't have anything to do with drafting it.I think it was a general screw up on the part of the initiative writers and it wasn't cross-checked properly. The intent was most likely to prohibit the very act it was trying to prevent. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #38 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 05:18:43 PT

My Thought
I think the drug testing industry and insurance companies want this clause. The insurance companies can blame cannabis in case of an accident and often that decreases the amount of money they have to pay out in a law suit. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #37 posted by greenmed on November 26, 2007 at 05:12:30 PT

BGreen
I got it... understand what you intended. The wording of the initiative is vague.As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana” includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body.Maybe this instead:As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marijuana” is defined as possession of one ounce or less of Cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinol.Is there any need at all to include metabolites in the definition of possession. Why must doing the right thing be so difficult.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #36 posted by BGreen on November 25, 2007 at 20:36:23 PT

Boy, I wasn't even clear
I meant to say "Without A plus B you can't have C."The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #35 posted by BGreen on November 25, 2007 at 20:30:32 PT

We need to hear from Paul Peterson
It would be good to hear his opinion on this since he has the legal education and used to practice law.On a personal level, Lester Grinspoon M.D. is one helluva great man, and I respect his opinions on matters of cannabis and medicine.I'm with Taylor121 on the fact that semantics are extremely important when it comes to issues that affect us legally and politically. Politicians use semantics to obfuscate their real intentions and actions all the time.I disagree with Taylor121 on his post #20. What if you possessed under an ounce but had no metabolites in your system? What happens if you have metabolites in your system but you have no cannabis?The "and" is inclusive in that you must have A "and" B for C to occur. Without A or B you can't have C.The "or" would mean that one of the two but not both would be necessary. A or B = C but not both.I think the simple insertion of "and/or" would clear up the meaning of the phrase in question.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #34 posted by John Tyler on November 25, 2007 at 19:46:11 PT

slippery little words
Has this initiative been reviewed by legal people who know the meaning of these slippery little words? 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #33 posted by ekim on November 25, 2007 at 18:07:28 PT

seems good to hear all this talk -- debate 
its been a long time commingas Richard Cowan says the truth has nothing to feareveryone take a few and feel the love
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #32 posted by FoM on November 25, 2007 at 16:52:10 PT

Sam
It might not be a mistake to Dr. Grinspoon. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #31 posted by Sam Adams on November 25, 2007 at 15:28:50 PT

dr. G
Even the best make mistakes. He's still a great guy, and his opinion matters, I just wish he had made his criticism in a private way. No need to hurt someone else's attempt to reform the laws.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on November 24, 2007 at 18:06:54 PT

Sam
Do you honestly believe that a man of the status of Dr. Grinspoon can be manipulated by anyone? I think he lives above that. His life is an example to me and many people.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #29 posted by Sam Adams on November 24, 2007 at 17:16:53 PT

can you all read?
Grinspoon is indeed a great man but he's dead wrong on this, and shouldn't butt into someone else's reform project. There will not be any THC cutoff on this, and no one will ever get prosecuted, the worst punishment will be a $100 fine. This referendum would save THOUSANDS of people from arrest and also being sent to jail for parole violations.I'm sorry to say that some other reformers, associated with NORML, are trying sleazy stuff to damage MPP's referendum in Mass, at the expense of all the pot smokers in the state. They used Lester as an unwitting stoolie for their personal vindictive agenda. What a shame. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #28 posted by mmjpatient on November 23, 2007 at 10:08:18 PT:

Grinspoon is right on!
If you can read it the way he means, then any judge or prosecution can read it the same way.....Sorry but Grinspoon is right! This initiative was written terribly. VOTE AGAINST IT!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #27 posted by charmed quark on November 23, 2007 at 08:56:49 PT

Mr. Zuckerman
Thanks for that the heads up on NJ SB88. I'm very concerned with this issue in NJ. I had wondered what had been happening - I knew it was hung up but not why. Now I know that it's "too controversial" to let people use the medicine that's best for them. Good to know.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #26 posted by afterburner on November 23, 2007 at 07:29:53 PT

'Weeds': Imported from Canada
CN ON: Edu: Just Your Average Ganja-Growing Soccer Mom, The Fulcrum, (21 Nov 2007) http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v07/n1347/a07.html?176
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #25 posted by FoM on November 23, 2007 at 07:09:16 PT

Taylor121
Since I don't understand much about clauses and laws I don't understand why they put them in Initiatives. I never understood Nevada's Initiative either. When we sign a contract for anything they have clauses that only protect them not the people who are purchasing a product or service. I am a simple kind of person and I believe yes should mean yes and no should mean no or it will confuse and make more problems in the long run. Complicated Initiatives do one thing in my opinion. They keep lawyers employed.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #24 posted by Taylor121 on November 23, 2007 at 06:37:30 PT

Yes it is ambiguous and you're right
Even though I can see how the language was intended to be used, it does appear ambiguous, although I still believe it was intended to actually protect one from additional laws being written to up the penalty with fluids. The point is it isn't clear despite the intention. It can read either way and initiatives shouldn't be worded like that.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #23 posted by Mike on November 23, 2007 at 01:49:38 PT

related
http://audac.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/wtf-7/

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #22 posted by Pete Guither on November 22, 2007 at 22:16:05 PT:

Call me a pessimist...
I'd like to agree with you Taylor, but..."possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the..."So on one hand, I have to possess an ounce or less. Is zero less than an ounce? If I possess less than an ounce and have metabolites... If I possess zero (less than an ounce) and have metabolites...I haven't read the entire thing, so I'm just going on the quoted section, but based on what I know of prosecutors, I'm thinking that someone's going to interpret it that way. Someone's going to get in a fatal crash and they'll test him and find metabolites.  Possession will get tossed in as an add-on charge to ramp up the penalties and the precedent will be established.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #21 posted by Taylor121 on November 22, 2007 at 21:30:04 PT

Still, I understand where is coming from
You could read it to mean what he is saying, but if you read it with the "includes" in front, it seems clear to me it's talking if the metabolites accompany the possession. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #20 posted by Taylor121 on November 22, 2007 at 21:13:50 PT

Grinspoon is not a lawyer, he is dead wrong 
He means well and I fully support him on everything else he has done, but he did not interpret the clause correctly. You all shouldn't trust people just like that. This is an initiative written by marijuana legalizers, not prohibitionists. Here is where he got mixed up."As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana” includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body."He confused it here since he thought the clause means that you can simply have metabolites in your urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, etc.. and be fined. The clause specifically says "... possession of one ounce or less of marhuana or tetrahydrocannabinol AND having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, etc.."NOTICE: The conjunction used is "and". If the initiative had used an "or" that would mean you could have metabolites and be fined, but the initiative states you have to already have marijuana ON YOU. The initiative is written like this to PREVENT additional charges to be laid for just having the metabolites, the exact OPPOSITE of what grinspoon and all of you are saying without even trying to understand the initiative. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by greenmed on November 22, 2007 at 21:08:05 PT

Thanksgiving
I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving. For those who enjoyed turkey today, I hope you're enjoying the pleasant effects of serotonin in your meal.http://www.howstuffworks.com/question519.htmEnjoy it now before the neo-cons try placing turkey in Schedule IV :)
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #18 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 20:19:52 PT

mayan 
I like Christmas because of the lights on people's houses and the Christmas Programs on TV. Christmas really is for children. We don't buy much of anything for Christmas but enjoy the season and it's really nice if we get snow. Once again it is time to see family and my nephew is coming home for a week or two from Iraq and I am looking forward to finding out what it is like living there and about the people and culture.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #17 posted by mayan on November 22, 2007 at 20:08:55 PT

Christmas
I used to love the season when I was a kid. It's all materialism now, and that's not my thing. I sometimes wish I was a stupid kid again and didn't know the things I know.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by mayan on November 22, 2007 at 20:02:01 PT

The Dollar's Death
Saudi Arabia ready to ditch the dollar to protect value of riyal:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/the_gulf/article2910189.eceAlarm: China Signals Flight From Dollar:
http://rense.com/general79/flight.htmNAU, here we come.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 19:33:42 PT

Mayan
Christmas is right around the corner. Life goes by so fast anymore. We have our tree up and lights outside on the house already. Other people around here have their lights up too.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by mayan on November 22, 2007 at 19:28:07 PT

FoM
Thank you. It's so cold it feels like Christmas though!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by mayan on November 22, 2007 at 19:23:59 PT

A Good One!
Alberto Gonzales Intrupted by Protesters (video):
http://mnchange.org/alberto-gonzales-intrupted-by-protesters
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 19:13:49 PT

Mayan
I hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving dinner is the best dinner ever! LOL! 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by mayan on November 22, 2007 at 19:06:29 PT

Start Over
The new offense is internal possession of marijuana metabolites. Anyone discovered to have any of these metabolites in his body fluids or hair would be prosecutable.I have to agree with Dr. Grinspoon. What a terrible initiative! Happy thanksgiving, all!THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...State Terror: H.R. 1955 a Weapon of Mass Destruction of Civil Liberties: 
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007112285903892MN C.H.A.N.G.E confronts Michelle Obama (video):
http://mnchange.org/mn-change-confronts-michelle-obamaLoose Change Final Cut Theatrical Premiere:
http://911blogger.com/node/126359/11 Blacklist:
http://www.911blacklist.org/9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 19:01:29 PT

Taylor121
I looked at the link you posted but it doesn't make sense to me but I believe Dr. Grinspoon wouldn't have said what he did in the article if it wasn't true. He is an honorable and dedicated man.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 18:52:30 PT

RevRayGreen 
Thank you for the pictures and I hope you had a good day with your parents. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by RevRayGreen on November 22, 2007 at 18:41:31 PT

No herb stuffing due to guests(my parents)
a few more pics........http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e25/RevGreen/179.jpghttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e25/RevGreen/183.jpghttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e25/RevGreen/181.jpg

Carving the Bird
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by Richard Zuckerman on November 22, 2007 at 18:22:18 PT:

NO. I ASSUMED DR. GRINSPOON'S FACTUAL INTERPRETAT
I have not read the language because I presumed Dr. Grinspoon's factual description. By the way, a correction: It is www.njcitizensforimmigration control.com, NOT www.njcitizensforimmigrationreform.com. Sorry for the error.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by Taylor121 on November 22, 2007 at 18:05:59 PT

Richard..
Did you even read the initiative language? 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by Richard Zuckerman on November 22, 2007 at 17:11:55 PT:

DR. GRINSPOON IS ON THE MARK ONCE AGAIN!
On what grounds would the police base their decision to test for the cannabinoids? I hope citizens fight for a "steadily evolving commitment" for enhancing State Constitutional protections, State v. Pierce, 136 N.J. 184, 209 (1994). Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 326 (2004(Kennedy, dissenting)("...using States to serve as laboratories for innovation and experiment."); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 342 (2003); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 581 (1995)(Kennedy, Concurring)("in this circumstance, the theory and utility of our federalism are revealed, for the States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution is far from clear."); New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932)(Brandeis, dissenting).Unfortunately, courts, at least New Jersey state courts, including the New Jersey Supreme Court, pay heedless disregard to the pleadings of pro se litigants, convicted felons, "mentally ill" litigants. Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 50 (1966)(Dissenting opinion by Justice Brennan and others)("Conventional methods of petitioning may be, and often have been, shut off to large groups of our citizens. Legislators may turn deaf ears; formal complaints may be routed endlessly through a bureaucratic maze; courts may let the wheels of justice grind very slowly..."); Practice of law as confidence game: organizational cooptation of a profession, by Abraham S. Blumberg, 1 Law and Society Review 15 [June 1967]; Lawyer Fees Too High? The Case for Repealing Unauthorized Practice of Law Statutes, by George C. Leef, Vice President for Research, The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, 200 West Morgan Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601, (phone)(919) 532-3600, (fax)(919) 532-0679, georgeleef popecenter.org; Why Law School Costs So Much, by George C. Leef, Regulation, [Spring 2003], www.cato.org. "t is not a privilege that can be granted or denied him at the government's whim. It is this right to vindicate one's rights in court that is the heart of the constitutional right to due process of law." Morrison v. Lipscomb, 877 F.2d 463, 467 (6th Cir. 1989); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S.   170 (1968)(Concurring opinion by United States Senator-turned-Associate Justice Hugo L. Black)("I have never believed that under the guise of federalism the States should be abnle to experiment with the protections afforded our citizens through the Bill of Rights."); "Mental patients probably have the most trouble getting the criminal justice system to act in their behalf..." Deviants: Victims or Victimizers?, SAGE Anual Review of Studies in Deviance, Volume 7, the essay in same collection of essays entitled Deviants As Victims, by Andrew Karmen, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City, (phone)(212) 237-8695, (fax)(212) 237-8941, akarmen jjay.cuny.edu, at pages ???, 246, and 251, c. 1983.I have a federal felony conviction for mailing a threat to a federal judge, on July 11, 1991. The federal sentence expired October 23, 1995, over 12 years ago. One of the issues involved in the lawsuit underlying the mail threat was whether N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7, Certain persons not to have weapons, was unconstitutional because it allowed a municipal court conviction WITHOUT A JURY to be a predicate "conviction" for purposes of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a disorderly persons under 25 grams "Marijuana" possession, whether the same Statute violated the U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, and whether the trial judge was correct in holding in his 89 page opinion that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not an individual citizen's Right, that the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution only applies to prevent the federal government from interfering with the formation of a state militia, R.P.Z. v. State of New Jersey, Docket number 87-2390 (Dickinson R. Debevoise), D.N.J. (Newark). I was taken thru trial on the mail threat conviction in the U.S. Courthouse where Judge Debevoise worked at the time. I do plan to ask for a Presidential Pardon when a new U.S. President comes in, if we still have a country by then, if I survive, if Bush does not arrange a "Great Purge", "Great Terror", on a large scale what Joseph Stalin did to his dissenters and protesters! THE OTHER DAY, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AGREED TO TAKE A CASE ON WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE UNTIED STATES CONSTITUTION IS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN'S RIGHT'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR PERSONAL SECURITY AND AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT, HELLER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DOCKET NUMBER 07-290, FROM PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 278 F.3d 370 (D.C. CIR. 2007), WWW.DCGUNCASE.COM. THIS CASE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE RACIAL TENSION AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMMIGRANTS WHO KILL 12 AMERICANS EVERY DAY, WWW.OPERATIONBODYCOUNT.COM, THE INCREASING FRRQUENCY OF POLICE TO TASER SUSPECTS WITH LITTLE OR NO PROVOCATION, AND PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S INTENTIONAL BANKRUPTING OF MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS TO FORCE US TO ACCEPT HIS PLANNED "NORTH AMERICAN UNION" AND NEW CURRENCY KNOWN AS THE "AMERO", WWW.INFOWARS.COM, WWW.STOPTHENORTHAMERICANUNION.COM; WWW.FAIRUS.ORG; WWW.VOICEOFTHEPEOPLEUSA.COM; WWW.NUMBERSUSA.COM; WWW.NJCITIZENSFORIMMIGRATIONREFORM.COM. AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CAME OUT WITH AN EDICT THE OTHER DAY PRONOUNCING ANYBODY WHO OPPOSES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION WILL BURN IN HELL!Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, N.J., 08840-0159, richardzuckerman2002 yahoo.com.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by Richard Zuckerman on November 22, 2007 at 16:30:50 PT:

MED POT BILL IN NEW JERSEY BY SENATOR SCUTARI
New Jersey State Senator Scutari, (telephone number)(908) 587-0404, has resubmitted a medical "Marijuana" Bill. His last submittal led to testimony from Montel Williams and Dr. John P. MOrgan, M.D., CUNY, but State Senate Health Committee Chairman Joseph Vitale, 87 Main Street, Woodbridge, New Jersey, 07095, (telephone number)(732) 855-7441, (fax)(732) 855-7558, www.senatorjoevitale.org, senvitale njleg.org, refused to allow a vote on the Bill, his reason quoted in the newspaper the day after the hearing it is "too controversial." Perhaps you should call these State Senators to inquire about the current status of this Bill? Ironically, Chairman Vitale mailed me a letter thanking me for my support the Bill he sponsored, Senate Bill 823 (January 10, 2006), which would permit limited pharmacy sales of syringes and needles without a prescription. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 09:56:55 PT

Taylor121
I really didn't read the article because I was busy in the kitchen but I love Dr. Grinspoon. I will check it out tonight.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #2 posted by Taylor121 on November 22, 2007 at 08:34:06 PT

Uhh read the initiative
I think Grinspoon is wrong.http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/initiative.html
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 22, 2007 at 06:30:01 PT

Dr. Grinspoon
Thank you for this wonderful Thanksgiving Day article.
[ Post Comment ]







  Post Comment