cannabisnews.com: Feds Should Settle Debate Regarding Marijuana Feds Should Settle Debate Regarding Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on June 09, 2007 at 06:11:03 PT Editorial Source: Norwich Bulletin Connecticut -- A bill allowing terminally and chronically ill people with certain conditions to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes is making its way to the governor's desk, where it is anyone's guess whether it will get a veto or a signature.It may seem like a radical bill for Connecticut, but it is not. Connecticut has allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana to treat glaucoma and cancer patients since 1981. Not one doctor in the state has ever written a prescription. Federally, marijuana is not an acceptable treatment, even though 46 states have a law of some kind acknowledging its use for medicinal purposes or granting patients the legal right to possess and use it.Numerous high-profile medical groups have come out in support of the use of medical marijuana and the bill. Almost as many groups have withheld comment on the issue. More of the same?We wonder if this new law is different enough to change anything. Under the 1981 law, doctors had to register with the Department of Consumer Protection to prescribe marijuana. No one did. The new law requires physicians to certify patients who can use medical marijuana, and the patient then registers with Consumer Protection. Patients can then grow four 4-foot plants of marijuana and use them for their treatment. Nowhere in the bill does it explain where patients will get the seeds to grow the marijuana, nor does it establish a legal way of selling them.The bill is a more conservative version of a Rhode Island law that passed last year as a one-year experiment and has now been made permanent. More than 250 patients have used the program and the response was overwhelmingly positive.But this issue will never be settled until it is dealt with on the federal level. It cannot be an issue that is political or centered on the nation's battle with drug use. There is no evidence that allowing medicinal use of marijuana promotes recreational drug use in any way.Gov. M Jodi Rell should sign the bill if she wants to make it clear this is an issue she believes needs broader debate. Only as states challenge the federal law will Congress be forced to evaluate the issue. Complete Title: Feds Should Settle Debate Regarding Medical MarijuanaSource: Norwich Bulletin (CT)Published: Saturday, June 9, 2007 Copyright: 2007 Norwich BulletinContact: rhackett norwichbulletin.com Website: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/Related Articles:Medical Marijuana Bill in Rell's Hand http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23036.shtmlMedical Marijuana Bill Wins OKhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23030.shtmlCannabis Measure Passes Senatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23029.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #39 posted by FoM on June 13, 2007 at 14:25:47 PT Limits Dankhank, I agree. Look at anyone who has enough money to get and do all the drugs they want and don't get anything but an oh dear what can we say. I understand the things that brought the hippie dream to a stand still and drugs with no limits create people that don't know how to set limits. Hard drugs just are sneaky. I had a friend growing up that she was known as the poor little rich girl. Her mother who didn't marry but had plenty of money gave her everything she asked for. I saw her as an adult. Her mother died from cancer and trying to save the business for her daughter she made so many mistakes that it left almost nothing. The girl grew up and never adjusted and was in and out of mental hospitals. I understand about limits. No one really tried to help Anna Nichole Smith either. Look at Whitney Houston and Britney Spears as examples of unlimited access to what ever they want when ever they want. [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by Dankhank on June 13, 2007 at 14:00:39 PT I think ... I read years ago that when a person becomes wildly popular/famous their emotional growth/development pretty much halts.So, Michael Jackson is at 7-years old, Lindsey Lohan is at 7/10, whatever and paris Hilton is ... 5/7/9. When no one will tell you about "limits" you learn none.maybe we should jail her parents, instead. [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by whig on June 13, 2007 at 13:00:10 PT Gah... See what a week of cannabis deprivation does? I start talking about Paris Hilton. Sorry, back in California, finally. [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by whig on June 13, 2007 at 11:52:33 PT Dankhank I do care about what happens to her, but not that she's feeling upset.I think she should feel upset.She's still a person. If she were actually harmed, I would feel bad. I think in her case this might help.I'm not so sure, though. It's hard for me to approve of any kind of imprisonment for anyone, but if Paris Hilton doesn't deserve it then nobody does for driving drunk.What do you think? [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by Dankhank on June 12, 2007 at 19:51:21 PT pickin' n choosin' who to care for ...tough choice for some, I guess ... [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 11:39:04 PT Poor Paris I care so little that I don't even want to care. [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 11:36:46 PT FoM I don't really watch the news on television except for the Lehrer News Hour and the Daily Show (fake news). I watch the Democratic debates, too. But the cable news is generally terrible and I just avoid it most of the time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by FoM on June 12, 2007 at 11:25:52 PT whig I think that summer time is the time for families to enjoy and most people won't get really interested until kids are back in school and we get closer to the last months of this year. I haven't found any interest in politics with people I know or my family right now. The way the news spins politics is becoming a turnoff I believe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 11:19:49 PT FoM I think because the primaries are so early and front-loaded the political season has to be as intense this soon. After the primaries is when the fatigue will set in, but I'm hoping it will be more intensely felt on the Republican side and that many of them will feel demoralized by the awfulness that has been the Bush administration and stay home in droves in November. Wouldn't it be nice? [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by FoM on June 12, 2007 at 09:49:38 PT whig This article seems true to me.U.S. Voters May Face Outbreak of "Campaign Fatigue" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070612/pl_nm/usa_politics_fatigue_dc [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 09:22:04 PT FoM I was really worried for Barack Obama's safety before he got secret service protection. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by FoM on June 12, 2007 at 09:00:43 PT whig I have found that I don't want to follow any one person in the DP since the election is so far away. I don't want to get emotionally attached to any one of the Democratic Party candidates. I was hurt when Robert Kennedy was killed and I don't want to ever have to feel that way again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 08:44:52 PT Btw... John Edwards was elected Vice President in 2004, if the Ohio votes were fairly counted. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 08:40:34 PT FoM I would also support Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson.I think John Edwards has a better chance of winning the nomination, though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by FoM on June 12, 2007 at 05:30:27 PT whig I'm glad you found someone that you like. If he wins the nomination I would vote for Edwards. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 03:15:34 PT Edwards rejects "War on Terror" http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616724,00.html At last month's Democrat (sic) debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase." [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 02:08:40 PT Two candidates I won't support Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said nothing good for us, and both support war. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by whig on June 12, 2007 at 02:07:05 PT John Edwards I believe he has been wrong in the past, but has been consistently good lately. I would support his nomination now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by JohnO on June 09, 2007 at 20:56:03 PT: This article did not say... ...whether the new law takes the burden of registry with the department of consumer protection off the doctors or whether it simply expands the list of medical issues for which cannabis can be used in addition to adding the burden of registry onto the patient. I assume that since no doctor has registered or at least never utilized the provisions of the old law, there may be an underlying threat of repercussions against them doing so since it is widely known that cancer and glaucoma are certainly long accepted uses for medicinal cannabis. Here's hoping for more clarity of definition, John. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 19:02:23 PT Dankhank Here's the link.http://www.download.com/Youtube-Grabber/3000-2071_4-10607323.html?tag=toprated [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Dankhank on June 09, 2007 at 18:41:41 PT download youtube ... wasn't aware that it could be done easily ...I looked around to find a way to download any video I ran across, but was way too complicated ...I really wanted a copy of "John the Revelator," and searched around before I found a standalone copy for download.http://youtube.com/watch?v=VaB1psXTjS4 for any who missed it ...now I admit ... youtube grabber sound interesting ... [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 18:02:12 PT Dankhank Thank you. There is a program called Youtube grabber on download.com and if there is a really good video it would be nice to download it during the free download time as long as I don't have to wait until 3 am to start the download. I get too tired to stay up that late anymore. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Dankhank on June 09, 2007 at 17:22:05 PT download mngr ... something like this might work ...http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/or try this ...http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=free+download+managers&btnG=Google+Search [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 14:18:16 PT kaptinemo Between 3 and 6 am people can download to their hearts content and not have any restrictions. I scheduled Windows Update to automatically download at 4 am so that won't count towards my daily allotment. I know the complaints are many and maybe they will have to change their policy. At least they should allow us to save up our time when we stay under 200. Then since I don't watch videos everyday I could maybe save up and watch a Farm-Aid concert is how I am looking at it for now. Thanks for your help. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on June 09, 2007 at 13:24:43 PT: And as to download managers I MegaUpload. It's a little expensive, but it's fairly reliable. But you would have the same problem, I think. Hughes isn't expanding their operations as much as they should and they are making you pay for their shortcomings in service. I can't see how a download manager would make that much of a difference, compressed files or not. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on June 09, 2007 at 13:17:50 PT: Hi, FoM and Crew I figured I'd stop by as it has been a while. I've been busy in the trenches http://tinyurl.com/2n52c6 , and have just helped close a thread...in our favor. Lotsa fun!And an indicator of why you only get the lower level types to 'stand and deliver', as the Big Boss can't afford to be made to look like a fool in a debate. Remember how 4 years ago Ol' Johnny Pee cut and ran from the MPP's gracious invitation to take him up on debating the subject? What's changing is the teflon coating afforded the ONDCP courtesy of a Treasury surplus of a few years back is finally flaking off. Other government agencies want the ONDCP's budget, and the Government Accounting Office has been giving them bureaucratic black eyes for at least 10 years. The ONDCP bureaucrats know the writing is on the wall; they can't afford to be lazy slouches in defending their agency lest more chum be thrown in the water and more sharks show up, looking to take a bite. The money to fund the Iraq War has to come from somewhere, and many citizens are no longer in a paying tax bracket. Bad news for the Treasury; bad news for the ONDCP. When they are forced into the trenches to justify their existence, they are trounced, every time. They've just had another skirmish and had some political hide removed. They know it and so do we. They won't be back until they are really desperate. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 11:33:35 PT Hope Have a great time with your family. You are Blessed. I wanted to mention that we are having our fields baled this year and I know you would appreciate the fact that our fields won't be wasted but fed to cows. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 11:02:57 PT A Question Kaptinemo Do you know anything about a good download manager? HughesNet has changed their policy and have a FAP and here's a link to help explain it. My question is I miss Youtube videos and I found one on download.com so I could download them if I had a program during 3 to 6 am and not get Fapped. Does this make sense?PS: The speed is great now since FAP started ( downloading at 1000 kpbs? ) but a youtube video uses around 15 of the 200 I'm allowed in a day. Without videos I only use about 60 a day.Fair Access Policy: http://tinyurl.com/ygcbzm [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 10:44:47 PT Kaptinemo This has been going on so long all I can think of right now is a South Park episode from years ago.South Park "Drugs Are Bad!! Mmm K"? http://blogs.mochacity.com/blog/south-park-drugs-are-bad-mmm-k-lol/92/current/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Hope on June 09, 2007 at 09:36:46 PT Kaptinemo, Museman Kaptinemo, Thanks for that news. Very much. That is good news. It's hard to believe one of them stuck his head up again.I can only imagine that Murray guy telling his comrades at ondcp, "I'll take care of those freaks."Museman, I'm harried by guilt! So much to read. Hardly ever any time to pick up the "sword". Overnight guests coming. Family. Summer. Grandchildren all over the place, all the time. (I am so blessed.) I fear I'm never going to get back to your novel. I'm going to have to start over now, as it is. I'm a slow reader anyway. I don't know when I'll ever get back to it and get it read...but I'm hoping to. I haven't forgotten it....at all! I plead patience of thee! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Hope on June 09, 2007 at 09:14:11 PT Kaptinemo! Shades of "Deja Vu, all over again!"Just read that old comment by you and was thinking of you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on June 09, 2007 at 09:09:31 PT: They're getting the message The title says it all. Namely, what we've been saying for years. Nail the Fed's feet to the floor, seal up the space between the floor and the door so they can't crawl out from under it, put a net over them, make them stand still and face the public...and dare to insult that public's intelligence by repeating their claptrap when faced with an activist in possession of the facts. A taste of what the prohibs may expect happened recently when arch drug prohibition propagandist Dr. David Murray tangled with said activists. http://tinyurl.com/2ezqnv Murray was reduced to ad hominem attacks almost as soon as he opened his mouth, a sure sign of an impending defeat. If this is the best they can do, they'll need to invest in some white flags. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Hope on June 09, 2007 at 08:40:47 PT One of the saddest, most deluded comments I've ever heard was when a narcotics officer claimed that he felt he was doing "God's work" by being a narcotics officer.Huh? God made the cannabis plant so you could bust the heads of his people over it?Delusions and how wide spread and common they are, are fascinating, amazing, and scary. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 08:26:17 PT Clinton: Pot Smoking Should Not Be Prison Offense December 06, 2000Excerpt: President Clinton, who tried to avoid the stigma of smoking marijuana by saying he never ''inhaled,'' tells Rolling Stone magazine that people should not be jailed for using or selling small amounts of the drug.http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7920.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Hope on June 09, 2007 at 08:23:53 PT These people....prohibitionists... are such hideous, lilly livered, cowards. They are so scared, so afraid, of a little green plant. It's not poisonous and it doesn't even have stickers or thorns....yet they live in terror of it. They make huge armies to "protect" them from it.It's insane...and they are extraordinary cowards....an uglier shade of yellow I've never seen. And all for no reason.I'd laugh at them, if it wasn't so tragic.They will kill children, old people, whoever...if they get in the way of their desire to "protect" the people from this plant and the coca plant and the khat plant as well. They've killed more people over cannabis...the straight plant...more than the others, though...I think. Their shade of yellow is tinged with the red of the blood of those they murdered in their rash rage to stop people from using the cannabis plant. It's insane and I marvel at their ability to delude themselves into thinking they are doing something right.An ex-con and permanet felon once told me, "You would never kill anyone over cannabis....but don't kid yourself, these enforcers will lay down their lives and yours, too to keep you from using that plant. They are crazy, dangerously crazy. Don't ever doubt it." [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 08:17:09 PT Just a Comment I am not an Edwards fan but I do appreciate a comment that isn't negative. I hope it will help open up the door to the other Democrats that are leading in the polls to answer the question. I hope someone uses Bill Clinton's words when asking his wife about marijuana.Bill Clinton said as he left office that marijuana should be decriminalized so it is a perfectly acceptable question to ask her by someone who goes to her events. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Hope on June 09, 2007 at 08:12:14 PT Edwards. I can only think... Yep. That's almost exactly, if not exactly, what Bush said. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by medicinal toker on June 09, 2007 at 08:06:09 PT an end to John Edwards medical cannabis cowardice? I saw the clip about Edwards too. It's about time, but for me, it's way too late. He should have been on the bus long ago, especially when his wife took ill. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 09, 2007 at 07:25:14 PT Edwards Talks Health Care: MMJ June 9, 2007Excerpt: Asked by a crowd member if he would continue the Bush administration practice of conducting raids against those who use marijuana for medicinal purposes, Edwards said he would not. In those states where voters had approved medicinal marijuana, he said he would honor the democratic process.URL: http://www.eagletribune.com/punewsnh/local_story_160093847 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment