cannabisnews.com: Assembly Panel Approves Nevada Marijuana Plan 





Assembly Panel Approves Nevada Marijuana Plan 
Posted by FoM on May 17, 2001 at 20:37:03 PT
By Brendan Riley, Associated Press Writer
Source: Associated Press 
Nevada's medical marijuana plan was approved Thursday in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee -- despite an adverse ruling earlier in the week from the U.S. Supreme Court. AB453 moved from the money panel to the Assembly floor on a unanimous vote, prompting Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, the bill sponsor, to say she's glad her colleagues "understand that our mandate from the people of Nevada remains unchanged." In Nevada, voters by a 2-1 margin have approved medical marijuana. The task of implementing the voters' mandate was left to the Legislature. 
Giunchigliani said the lawmakers' legal advisers said Monday's Supreme Court opinion didn't deal with plans by states to allow medical marijuana, and so it doesn't raise problems for AB453. The high court ruled that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal makes no exception for ill patients. The court's action leaves those distributing the drug for that purpose open to prosecution. AB453 lets seriously ill Nevadans grow their own marijuana for pain relief. The bill also would ease penalties for anyone caught with small amounts of the illegal weed. Also proposed was SB545, seen as a backup proposal, which would make the drug available only to a limited number of people for a marijuana research study program. Dan Hart of Nevadans for Medical Rights, the group that worked to get voter approval of medical marijuana, said he was encouraged by the Assembly committee's vote, and figured it would lead to quick approval by the full Assembly. "The question is, what happens in the Senate and with the governor?" Hart said. "But we're optimistic about it going through the whole process." Hart's group is part of Americans for Medical Rights, which sponsored eight successful medical marijuana initiatives around the nation. Bill Zimmerman, director of the national group, said the Supreme Court ruling rejected one form of marijuana distribution -- a cooperative arrangement with city approval -- but "does not foreclose creation of state-sponsored medical marijuana distribution systems." Besides Nevada, voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon and Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year. In Nevada, voters authorized use of marijuana by those suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other painful and potentially terminal illnesses. The amendment to the Nevada Constitution easily won voter approval in 1998 and again last November. Source: Associated PressBrendan Riley, Associated Press WriterPublished: Thursday, May 17, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Associated Press  Related Articles & Web Site:Americans For Medical Rightshttp://medmjscience.org/Backer of Nevada Program To Keep Workinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9739.shtmlCourt Ruling Threatens Nevada Marijuana Plan http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9712.shtmlEx-Candidate Offers To Fund Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9656.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on May 18, 2001 at 08:48:59 PT:
BCG brings up an interesting point
Namely, what can happen to a county - or a State - or even a Nation, for that matter - whose bass-ackwards insistence upon lemming-like adherence to insane cannabis laws will cost them economically.A simple fact of economics: drive out your creative, effective economic producers, and what do you have? A stagnant economy. The various States of the Union have recognized that fact and are competing for businesses to locate in their area. In the State where I work, they have skyscrapers going up all over...because they agggresively courted the IT field.The State where I live, however, did not do it fast enough, and would up 'sucking hind tit'. End of lesson.Last year, when the Ontario Supreme Court practically struck down that Province's MJ laws, there was more than a little talk here about emigration.Talk that would scare the bejeezus out of the more intelligent antis, were they to actually think out the consequences of their gross miscalculations in trampling our civil liberties.The rank-and-file antis couldn't even begin to comprehend why they should even worry. That's because True Believer grunts like Frances and Joyce don't quite realize that the very technology they so clumsily use to try to lambast us with was developed by people who had and continue to have more than a passing acquaintence with cannabis.Now, what if all the highly creative, productive, technologically pioneering, company forming and locals hiring so-called potheads upped and moved to a locale more suited to their liking? One that recognized that the economic advantages of having such people would have very salutory effect upon nearly every facet of their economy?When I was visiting friends up in Canada, there were articles in the local Toronto papers about the 'brain drain'. Namely, Canadian professionals seeking greener pastures tax-wise here in the States. That kind of drain can be murder to any nation's economy. Just ask the Canucks.But, hypothetically speaking, what if the Canadians suddenly decided to reduce their taxes...and then decided cannabis use is not a deterrent to being a good citizen? A business-friendly ... and cannabis wise...Canada would soon see an influx of people with technical, managerial, maufacturing, and other critical skill sets. People who are more than willing to learn how to sing "Oh, Canada!", spell some words like 'center' differently, pay their bills in that neat multi-colored currency... and who possess no particular love for the Federal government of the US and it's policies.That kind of 'brain drain' should have the very top echelon of the US antis sweating. It doesn't...yet. But it could. It could. And, if the Feds begin trying to round up cannabis patients and don't back off, then they may just learn this the hard way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by bcg on May 18, 2001 at 06:30:29 PT
states rights
GF-I am not at all surprised that the states are more responsive than the Feds. The Feds are like the anti-midas - Every thing they touch turns to s**t. The trouncing of the 10th amendment in the bill of rights opened the door for the Feds to ransack the rest. I believe that people in local municipalities have a better feel for what's rigt in their communities than career politicos in DC. Reguarding Prohibition, as I grew up in Texas, some counties were "dry" and some were "moist", and some were as liberal with alcohol as state law would allow. This seemed to work very nicely. If you didn't like a county's liquor law - well, you could move to a county with laws you could abide by. I like this method far better than a FEDERAL mandate either imposing or prohibiting a regulatory system on MJ
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dddd on May 18, 2001 at 06:28:31 PT
State Buds
Right on Greenfox.I think Washington state istalking about the same state supply thing.The plot thickens...........dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by greenfox on May 18, 2001 at 05:59:44 PT
The fall of prohibition
It's interesting to note that when alcohol was illegal, there were many state efforts before a federal effort or federal relief to prohibition was sought. In comparison, marijuana is obtaining more "support" by people in certain states- people who would not have supported these moves 10 years ago. Now, Nevada is talking about a state distribution system. I find this very interesting and hope it goes through for one reason-if Uncle Sam wants to shut down a co-op in California, that's one thing because it's run by advocates. But what happens when a state sets up a distribution site which is completely state controlled and state mandated? It will be interesting to see if the Feds attack a state co-op as they would an advocate co-op (like what happened in Oakland, etc.) Will the Feds knock down the doors of state distribiution farms, or will things be a little different?I believe New York was the first state to basically say "fu*k you" to the alcohol laws, but I'd need Kap or OB's help on the history there. In any case, this time around it was California. Like dogs and cats, it's interesting to see the two sides of the debate unfold. And even more so, it's interesting to see States' (such as Nevada) handle topics (such as marijuana prohibition or medical marijuana) more efficitiantly than even our own federal goverment. Considering that they are supposed to represent us, they are very far behind- even further behind than the states. That's saying something, to be sure.sly in green, FOXY in kind...-greenfox
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: