cannabisnews.com: Hedlund Favors Allowing Medical Use of Marijuana





Hedlund Favors Allowing Medical Use of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on January 06, 2006 at 08:15:36 PT
By Tom Benner, Patriot Ledger State House Bureau
Source: Patriot Ledger
Boston -- A state senator from the South Shore is among those hoping Massachusetts follows the lead of Rhode Island and Maine by legalizing marijuana for medical use.On Tuesday, Rhode Island became the 11th state to legalize medical marijuana and the first to do so since the June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that patients who use the drug still may be prosecuted under federal law.
State Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth, is co-sponsoring a bill that calls for allowing people to grow and use small amounts of marijuana for medical reasons.Hedlund said he has heard many stories from ill people, including a close friend with glaucoma, who say marijuana eased their pain.‘‘I know it’s anecdotal, but I believe him,’’ Hedlund said. ‘‘I’m not in favor of the full-blown legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, but I think there should be a dialogue about whether there’s a medical benefit to this.’’Jim Cook of Quincy said marijuana was the only thing that gave relief to his brother Alan when he was dying of AIDS in the mid-1980s. Alan Cook lived in Montreal, where people are allowed to smoke marijuana to ease the symptoms of disease or the effects of disease treatments such as chemotherapy.‘‘It is an absolute no-brainer that it should be available to people with terminal illness,’’ Jim Cook said. ‘‘The prohibitions against it are an unnecessary intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens.’’Cook is a member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.‘‘In this state, the politicians are just totally out of step with the population,’’ said coalition spokesman and Georgetown attorney Steven Epstein, adding that nonbinding ballot questions endorsing the use of medicinal marijuana have passed in communities across the state. ‘‘Everywhere it’s been on the ballot, it’s won.’’Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the Romney administration’s point person on drug policy, had no comment yesterday. In the past, she has opposed decriminalization of marijuana.The Rhode Island House voted 59-13 to override a veto by Gov. Don Carcieri, allowing people with illnesses such as cancer and AIDS to grow up to 12 marijuana plants indoors or possess up to 2.5 ounces without being arrested.. The law requires them to register with the state and get a photo identification card.Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and now Rhode Island allow people to grow it for use as medicine.On June 6, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it can still be prosecuted under federal drug laws. Federal authorities acknowledged that they were unlikely to prosecute many medicinal users, and Rhode Island lawmakers pressed on, passing their medical marijuana bill on June 7.In November 2004, voters in five South Shore towns - Abington, Whitman, East Bridgewater, Canton and Stoughton - approved by large margins a nonbinding ballot question that proposed allowing seriously ill people to grow and use marijuana, with a doctor’s permission.In the same election, voters in Cohasset, Hingham, Hull and Scituate passed a nonbinding question that proposed treating the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as a civil, rather than crimimal, offense.Complete Title: After Rhode Island's Approval - Hedlund Favors Allowing Medical Use of Marijuana; Bill’s Passage Would Make Mass. Latest State To LegalizeYour Views:Tell us what you think about legalizing medical use of marijuana.Write: Your Views, The Patriot Ledger, 400 Crown Colony Drive, Quincy, MA 02169Fax: 617-786-7393Call: 781-340-3156E-mail: editpage ledger.comPlease include your address and telephone number.Tom Benner may be reached at:  tbenner ledger.comSource: Patriot Ledger, The (MA)Author: Tom Benner, Patriot Ledger State House BureauPublished: Thursday, January 05, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Patriot LedgerContact: editpage ledger.comWebsite: http://www.patriotledger.com/Related Articles & Web Site:MassCannhttp://www.masscann.org/ R.I. Pro-Pot Decision Won’t Sway His Oppositionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21450.shtmlPolitics of Painhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21444.shtmlOle Miss Marijuana Monopoly Under Fire http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21392.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by whig on January 08, 2006 at 09:28:18 PT
Jim
"I have also determined one other thing. I would rather cannabis remain illegal for a while longer. It might actually profit myself more if it were illegal a bit more. It's not as if the streets are going to flood with activists storming the capitals anyway. For we are a nation of geezers. Too afraid of our own shadow to do anything, or to matter anyway."This was a hateful rant, Jim, and your fear of "geezers" as support of continued prohibition reflects the discriminatory underpinnings of the policy since the days of Reefer Madness.I think you've lost the thread somewhere.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Jim Lunsford on January 08, 2006 at 03:43:13 PT
On rudeness
I guess I am. I don't apologize. I know that republicans also read this, but they are open game for this site. Bush is not a true conservative. Southerners are bashed without a blink, but that's okay as well. Screw geezers. They didn't change any thing. That is the generation that gave us the pee bottle. Rude and condencending? That would be the northeastern liberal. Personally, I am rude. Life is way too short to be dealing with that fake wondering if I'm going to offend anyone bs. I'm sure that I will offend many people in any one day. I don't have a problem with that. I don't like wasting my time with those fake polite people. Too many passive aggressives in there for me. I don't like geezers. Not all old people are geezers, but most are. They got old because they never took any risks at all. They are also the ones who wait for a "leader" as they are too afraid to stand on their own. Geezers aren't just old either, but they become more geezerly when they do get old. They are the sheep that are led into the slaughterhouse by their trusted shepard. They are the ones who use their brains as little as possible, and then wonder why it goes downhill later on in life.Every one calls this a war, but it's not. If it were, then the DEA would have been defeated a long time ago. Mostly this is an electonic b#tch session. And all the talk is just hoping someone else will do something. That is the thing about activism. Not much time to read the comments anyway. To busy doing.And yes, I learned this from an 84 year old man. Consider him a friend and a pioneer. He follows no one else's trail. I don't think he would object to the term either. I have also determined one other thing. I would rather cannabis remain illegal for a while longer. It might actually profit myself more if it were illegal a bit more. It's not as if the streets are going to flood with activists storming the capitals anyway. For we are a nation of geezers. Too afraid of our own shadow to do anything, or to matter anyway.Rev Jim LunsfordFirst Cannabist ChurchNo point. Last post. Off to deal some weed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 07, 2006 at 10:13:23 PT
Max Flowers 
I don't read his comments either but name calling older people isn't nice. It's like calling young people punks. I look thru a comment but don't read the whole thing. His rants aren't worth me wasting my time reading. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on January 07, 2006 at 10:05:17 PT
FoM
I guess you kind of have to read every comment posted, since you run the site. Myself, I've been skipping "the reverend's" rants for quite a while now... after about the 20th time I read one of his novellas and found at the end that there was no cohesion, just attitude (not that attitude is a bad thing, it just needs to have a point that it supports).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 06, 2006 at 16:51:03 PT
Geezer
Who are you talking about in such a condescending way? Remember we have older people and younger people here and you are being rude.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Jim Lunsford on January 06, 2006 at 16:43:18 PT
It's basic economics
We have a third of our population getting into "geezer" country. They've done such a good job of selling the prescriptions to the people, that this would bankrupt most states. Oh yeah, selling the way overpriced drugs to the people. Weed is cheap and it works.That's good in a lot of other ways as well. This is a portal through which we go in legalization, but it is just the beginning. Once the med laws go, and hemp goes back on the farms, all of it's here. But, if it doesn't go that way, it will another. That's the thing about a change like this, it's unpredictable. And if it doesn't, then things will still be okay in my world. For I do smoke a LOT of Cannabis. And the world can kiss my butt if it doesn't like it, for I harm no one else with this action. We only have one life to live. And it is a dream anyway. Why not make this the most exciting dream you've ever had? That's one reason why the laws don't matter to me. I don't care about the laws. If this is all you've got, then why would you spend this time on living less than all out. Who is the person who has the right to tell me I can't do something that only affects my time on earth? No man has that right. Unless I give it to him. And let me tell you, that person had better be packing a lunch! A nice big cannabis burger would be a great choice. Seriously though. All footsteps lead to the grave. Pick the way you want to go, and don't let anyone else out there stop you. For they can't. 
 Rev Jim LunsfordFirst Cannabist ChurchIf I'd known I would have lived this long, I would've lived harder than I did.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 06, 2006 at 15:57:32 PT
It Goes Like This Among The People
Of the many people I know who don't smoke marijuana, about a third say they would smoke it if it were legal, about a third don't care either way, and about a third are against it. If you add the people who do smoke, we have a majority.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on January 06, 2006 at 13:15:55 PT:
Toes in the water, fingers in the air
the pols are testing the water and gauging the wind direction. They can tell it's shifting.The State pols are starting to realize what we've known all along: there is quiet but massive support for this issue from the electorate. Enough to cause the usual knee-jerk reactions to be held in abeyance while the pols figure out how to maneuver themselves to flow with the public's support of MMJ...while not seeming as if they were. *"Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the Romney administration’s point person on drug policy, had no comment yesterday. In the past, she has opposed decriminalization of marijuana."* Yes, odd how previously they would just reflexively, fearlessly bray their nonsense with impunity and now...they're silent. Mr. Carcieri tried it and wound up looking like a sour-grapes loser and a clueless old f**t. Hmmm. Maybe they got the message this time? Evidently, some did...and others will. "Taxachusets" will be the next State to adopt MMJ laws, and Connecticut will probably be not far behind. Who will be next? PA? "Maerlind" (aka "Maryland")? We said we'd do it, and the antis laughed. They thought we didn't have the energy, the drive, the focus, believing their own propaganda about 'lazy slacker stoners'...and now they've been handed a stinging defeat. We said we'd do it town by town, city by city, county by county, State by State, if we had to...and we are. The antis aren't laughing now, they're sweating bullets. They'll be sweating artillery shells by the time we're through. WE WILL NOT BE DENIED ANY LONGER!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by whig on January 06, 2006 at 12:32:08 PT
June 6
If you had not have fallenThen I would not have found youAngel flying too close to the groundAnd I patched up your broken wingAnd hung around a whileTried to keep your spirits upWhile you were feelin' downI knew someday that you would fly awayFor love's the greatest healer to be foundSo leave me if you need toI will still rememberAngel flying too close to the groundFly on, fly on past the speed of soundI'd rather see you upThan see you downLeave me if you need toI will still rememberAngel flying too close to the ground(Willie Nelson)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by global_warming on January 06, 2006 at 11:30:58 PT
June 6
"On June 6, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it can still be prosecuted under federal drug laws. "That may have been the day most infamous, for it was the day, when it was decided, by the highest court of the land, that somebody can come before your face, and place you in leg irons and drag you away into a prison.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dongenero on January 06, 2006 at 09:53:38 PT
great point in comment 2, whig
The politicians, particularly the federal bunch are beholden not to the People so much as their campaign supporters, which means the lobbyists and corporations and special interest organizations. Many of these lobbyists and their corporate and special interest clients are opposed to cannabis for financial and or idealogical/cultural reasons. Mostly, it's money though. The root of all evil, it's been said.Cha-ching
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by whig on January 06, 2006 at 08:47:30 PT
Why not the US congress, then?
While the points I made below are evident in state after state, at the federal level we aren't seeing the same kind of change. Why is this? Because the natural constituency of politicians is not the people who VOTE for them, but the people who finance their campaigns. At the local and state level, there are just too many politicians for the pharma industry to buy outright. (They still need to be concerned for the prison-industrial complex and this is why they won't support legalization yet, just medical pot.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by whig on January 06, 2006 at 08:39:28 PT
Folks, we've already won
It's like this. Politicians say what they think the public wants to hear. It isn't a question of what they might feel in their heart. When Hedlund says "he has heard many stories from ill people, including a close friend with glaucoma, who say marijuana eased their pain" he isn't saying he's been convinced by his friends or the arguments that we've made. No, because if he thought that medical marijuana would be harmful to HIMSELF politically, he would oppose it strenuously.We've won, because the politicians are arguing from political expediency just as always, and it has become more, not less, advantageous to them politically to support medical marijuana. That means they KNOW the people support it, and not just in a weak sort of preference way, but in a strongly felt way that would damage them politically were they to oppose.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment