Federal Drug Reform Legislation in the Congress; Medical Marijuana, Marijuana Decriminalization & Industrial Hemp

November 15, 2009 – Here’s an update on some of the more significant legislation moving (or not) on the Hill.

Medical Marijuana

Late last month, Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) reintroduced H.R. 3939, the Truth in Trials Act, which would allow defendants in federal medical marijuana prosecutions to use medical evidence in their defense — a right they do not have under current federal law. The bill currently has 28 cosponsors and has been endorsed by more than three dozen advocacy, health, and civil liberties organizations. It is before the House Judiciary Committee.

That isn’t the only medical marijuana bill pending. In June, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Medical Marijuana Protection Act, which would reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug and eliminate federal authority to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal. The measure has 29 cosponsors and has been sitting in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce ever since. Frank introduced similar legislation in the last two Congresses, but the bills never got a committee vote or even a hearing. Advocates hoped that with a Democratically-controlled Congress and a president who has at least given lip service to medical marijuana, Congress this year would prove to be friendlier ground, but that hasn’t proven to be the case so far.

In July, the House passed the District of Columbia appropriations bill and in so doing removed an 11-year-old amendment barring the District from implementing the medical marijuana law approved by voters in 1998. Known as the Barr amendment after then Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), the amendment has been attacked by both medical marijuana and DC home rule advocates for years as an unconscionable intrusion into District affairs. The Senate has yet to act. Among the proponents for removing the Barr amendment: Bob Barr.

Marijuana Decriminalization

In June, Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Personal Use of Marijuana By Responsible Adults Act, which would remove federal criminal penalties for the possession of less than 100 grams (about 3.5 ounces) and for the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce. The bill would not change marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance, would not change federal laws banning the growing, sale, and import and export of marijuana, and would not undo state laws prohibiting marijuana. It currently has nine cosponsors and has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

And just so you don’t get the mistaken idea that the era of drug war zealotry on the Hill is completely in the past, there is Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL). In June, Kirk introduced the High Potency Marijuana Sentencing Enhancement Act, which would increase penalties for marijuana offenses if the THC level is above 15%. Taking a page from the British tabloids, Kirk complained that high-potency “Kush” was turning his suburban Chicago constituents into “zombies.” Nearly six months later, Kirk’s bill has exactly zero cosponsors and has been sent to die in the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Industrial Hemp

Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) again introduced an industrial hemp bill this year. HR 1866, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. They were joined by a bipartisan group of nine cosponsors, a number which has since grown to 18. The bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce and House Judiciary committees upon introduction. Six weeks later, Judiciary referred it to its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, where it has languished ever since. Source.

 

Reformers: No Marijuana Legalization In California This Year…Ballot Measure In 2010?

July 18, 2009 – Marijuana has generated some headlines in California this week, with a report that a state legislature proposal to legalize and tax it could bring in $1.4 billion for the state, and a proposal from an LA councilwoman to tax medical marijuana. But while reformers have seen the profile of medical marijuana and overall pot legalization raised in 2009, they don’t expect the California measure to pass this year.

“In the long term, yes, but I don’t think it’s gonna pass this summer,” Marijuana Policy Project Communications Director Bruce Mirken said.

The bill has not been slated for legislative action in 2009: if it’s taken up, it will be when the legislature convenes in 2010, Drug Policy Alliance Deputy State Director for Southern California Margaret Dooley-Sammuli said.

“We expect a more healthy debate, which is a victory in and of itself–a serious debate in the legislature about the benefits and the risks of such a change in policy,” Dooley-Sammuli said.

Indeed, that would be a victory for marijuana reformers: the issue has struggled to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the political mainstream in the past (President Obama mocked legalization at a town hall early in his White House tenure, after numerous citizens had submitted questions about it online), but marijuana’s venture into the political fore culminated when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in May that it’s time to have that serious debate.

California’s budget crisis has played perhaps the biggest role in giving marijuana reform that mainstream cred as an issue for serious consideration. As Mirken pointed out, the state’s budget difficulties may not go away anytime soon, and the fiscal imperative for revenue could continue to propel reform efforts beyond 2009.

Reformers often cite the April Field poll that reported 56 percent public support for legalization among Californians. If there’s a majority public backing for policy change, and if it is indeed the reticence of public officials that’s holding reformers back, a ballot initiative in 2010 could put that support to the test: Oakland-based marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee suggested to the San Francisco Chronicle in June that he’s preparing to try such a measure at the polls.

Drug Policy Alliance‘s Dooley-Sammuli said there could be “some real money” behind a legalization ballot initiative. That money would be key: as we saw with Proposition 8, ballot fights on social initiatives in California can be intense, and the political infrastructure and financial backing of reform groups would be tested in the realms of field work and TV/radio ad campaigns.

So, as much as it’s been talked about as a watershed moment for pot, 2009′s budget crisis likely won’t yield a major policy shift in California–but ongoing budget difficulties, public support, and the financial werewithal of the reform initiative could determine its future in 2010. Source.

 

San Diego’s War on Medical Marijuana Continues -

July 7, 2009 – In California it has been over a decade since the Compassionate Use Act. Several years since SB420, and almost a year since the California Attorney General’s guidelines. We have even had The California Third District Court of Appeal last week issue a ruling reaffirming patients rights to collectively cultivate medical marijuana.

However here in San Diego we still have our leadership debating whether marijuana is medicine. The San Diego DA’s Office and Bonnie Dumanis have stated numerous times that there is no such thing as a legal collective or cooperative, and that anyone who engages in an attempt to cultivate and distribute collectively is obviously in it for profit, “why else would they get in to this activity”.

In California it has been over a decade since the Compassionate Use Act. Several years since SB420, and almost a year since the California Attorney General’s guidelines. We have even had The California Third District Court of Appeal last week issue a ruling reaffirming patients rights to collectively cultivate medical marijuana.

However here in San Diego we still have our leadership debating whether marijuana is medicine. The San Diego DA’s Office has stated numerous times that there is no such thing as a legal collective or cooperative, and that anyone who engages in an attempt to cultivate and distribute collectively is obviously in it for profit, “why else would they get in to this activity”.

We have judges who refuse to accept a written physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana as a valid patient status in court, and refuse to allow court qualified expert witnesses to testify in medical marijuana cases that are brought in by the defense.

In these same cases, San Diego narcotics detectives are allowed to testify as ‘experts’ on medical cannabis, even though they have received no more then 1 hour of medical marijuana training in their entire career, are not familiar with the laws already in place, and have testified in court that they have never seen a legal collective.

All while the San Diego county board of supervisors makes “illegal dispensaries illegal” adding more confusion to the already confusing serpentine roadmap of laws that patients have to go through.

By their actions and statements the District Attourney, Chief of Police, and our County Board have all made it clear, San Diego is NOT a safe place for any collective cultivation efforts, here patients are rounded up in drug sting operations, prosecuted, and forced into taking plea bargains. The few that put up a fight are thrown in jail.

There are many collectives in San Diego that have gone above and beyond what is required in order to comply and stay within the law. Yet every attempt made to date by in San Diego has resulted in long investigations, prosecutions, and collectives having to operate so deeply underground and under such intense daily fear and pressure, that the potential public benefit they could be bringing to the community and to patients is stifled by this environment of fear.

We as a community need to educate the public on the truth and benefits of medical cannabis and the laws already in place. How many more years need to pass and how many more lives need to be destroyed until there is change in San Diego and until patients rights are respected?

I am Eugene Davidovich and have been a resident of San Diego for over 20 years, honorably discharged from the US Navy, and having completed an MBA, I built a successful career in Software Development Project Management. I also am a medical cannabis patient and operated a non profit collective here in San Diego until last February when my house was raided and I arrested in ‘Operation Green Rx’ later announced by the District Attorney in a press conference as ‘Operation Endless Summer’.

In this operation a local San Diego Police Detective lied to his doctor about his identity and condition, obtained a valid recommendation for medical marijuana and joined the majority of the medical collectives and coops listed on the San Diego section of the CA NORML list.

The detective called me and joined the collective over the phone. Then after verifying his eligibility with his doctor I allowed him to join the collective. While pretending to be a sick patient, he requested that I deliver medical cannabis to him. Having seen him once and provided him with a ¼ ounce of medical cannabis, I am now facing 4 felony charges, $65,000 bail, and permanent profoundly traumatic damage to my professional and personal life.

Please join me in the struggle for patients’ rights to collectively cultivate and distribute medication by supporting me in court on July 13th, 2009 at 8:15am.

To learn more about my case and to see the actual footage of the undercover operation where I deliver the medication to the undercover officer, please visit http://www.eugenedavidovich.com

by Eugene Davidovich. Source.

 

Oregon Passes Hemp Bill-Becomes Sixth State in 2009 to Take Action

State Pressure to Grow Hemp Continues to Mount as Business Booms

June 30, 2009 – SALEM, Ore., — Yesterday, by a vote of 46 to 11, the Oregon House passed SB 676, a bill that permits production and possession of industrial hemp and trade in industrial hemp commodities and products. “I am glad that Oregon has joined the list of states that have agreed that American farmers should have the right to re-introduce industrial hemp as an agricultural crop,” says SB 676 sponsor, Sen. Floyd Prozanski. “By passing SB 676 with strong bi-partisan support, the Oregon Legislature has taken a proactive position to allow its farmers the right to grow industrial hemp, to provide American manufacturers with domestically-grown hemp, and to profit from that effort.” The Oregon Senate passed the bill by an overwhelming majority vote of 27 to 2 on June 19. Vote Hemp is optimistic that Governor Kulongoski will sign the bill. Oregon would become the ninth state to authorize regulated hemp farming under state law.

“The time has come for the federal government to act and allow farmers to once again grow hemp, so American companies will no longer need to import it and American farmers will no longer be denied a profitable new crop,” comments Vote Hemp President, Eric Steenstra. “Under current federal policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it cannot be grown by American farmers. Hemp is a versatile, environmentally-friendly crop that has not been grown in the U.S. for over fifty years because of a misguided and politicized interpretation of the nation’s drug laws by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). While a new bill in Congress, HR 1866, is a welcome step, the hemp industry is hopeful that President Obama’s administration will recognize hemp’s myriad benefits to farmers, businesses and the environment,” adds Steenstra.

Many businesses in Oregon manufacture, market and sell hemp products, including Living Harvest, The Merry Hempsters, Wilderness Poets, Earthbound Creations, Sweetgrass Natural Fibers, Sympatico Clothing, Mama’s Herbal Soaps and Hempire. Living Harvest of Portland was recently ranked the third-fastest-growing company in Oregon, as awarded by The Portland Business Journal’s “Fastest-Growing Private 100 Companies” annual award.

“We are looking forward to the opportunity to invest in hemp processing and production locally,” says Hans Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest. “This bill represents another step towards heightening the hemp industry’s profile within mainstream America and making hemp products more accessible to businesses and consumers.”

These Oregon-based companies have been on the leading edge of the growing hemp food and body care markets, which are currently estimated to be $113 million in North American annual retail sales by the Hemp Industries Association (HIA). The HIA estimates the 2008 annual retail sales of all hemp products in North America to be about $360 million. By allowing U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp, legislators can clear the way for a “New Billion-Dollar Crop.”

On June 9, with little fanfare, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed the Maine hemp farming bill, LD 1159, into law. Maine’s House had previously passed the bill without objection, and the Senate later passed it by a strong vote of 25 to 10. The bill establishes a licensing regime for farming industrial hemp, although the licensing is contingent upon action by the federal government. Maine had previously passed a study bill that also defined industrial hemp.

During the 2009 legislative session, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and North Dakota all passed resolutions or memorials urging Congress to allow states to regulate hemp farming. Sixteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation to date, and eight states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) have removed barriers to its production or research. North Dakota has even issued state licenses to would-be hemp farmers for two years running.

Vote Hemp is a national, single-issue, non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for low-THC industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow this agricultural crop. More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses may be found at http://www.VoteHemp.com or http://www.HempIndustries.org.

BETA SP or DVD Video News Releases featuring footage of hemp farming in other countries are available upon request by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.

Source.

 

Rhode Island Sets Good Example With Pot Law

June 30th, 2009 – Those of us who have seen the suffering of sick friends or family members relieved by smoking marijuana remain mystified at Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s opposition to a medical marijuana law. But perhaps she will be inspired by Rhode Island’s example.

The Ocean State’s legislature has expanded a 2006 medical marijuana law to allow for state-licensed “compassion centers,” dispensaries where chronically ill residents who are registered with the state health department and have a prescription from a doctor may buy pot to ease their pain. There are 700 registered patients and 582 caregivers who may purchase marijuana on behalf of someone else.

Rhode Island joined California and New Mexico as the only states to permit marijuana sales to chronically ill people. At least eight other states, including New Hampshire and Maine, are considering similar legislation; 13 states offer some legal protection to patients who use marijuana under a doctor’s care.

Connecticut might have been the 14th. A bill introduced last year would have allowed patients with conditions such as cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis or AIDS to grow up to four marijuana plants in their homes with a doctor’s prescription. The bill was approved by wide margins in the Connecticut House and Senate. Polls showed that 83 percent of residents supported the legislation.

But Mrs. Rell vetoed the measure. She said it would force people to seek out drug dealers to buy marijuana, apparently unaware that that’s what sick people or their friends were already doing.

Mrs. Rell also said the bill would send the wrong message to young people. But research by the Washington, D.C.-based Medical Marijuana Project has found no increases in marijuana use among the young and some indications of less use in some age groups in states that allow medical marijuana.

Perhaps when pot becomes a palliative for cancer or HIV/AIDS patients, it loses its attraction.

State Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, R-Somers, whose then-husband used marijuana to counter the pain of bone cancer in the 1980s, reintroduced the medical marijuana bill earlier this year but did not press it after she was told that the governor had not changed her position.

The governor ought to do so in time for the 2010 session, lest she allow ideology to trump compassion. Source.

 

Time to put Hemp to Use

June 24, 2009 – THE time is now to utilize the untapped, renewable resource of hemp. Food, clothing, shelter and fuel are products of this historically tried and true plant.

THE time is now to utilize the untapped, renewable resource of hemp. Food, clothing, shelter and fuel are products of this historically tried and true plant.

Until now, ignorance has lumped hemp and marijuana together as a Schedule 1 narcotic, in the same category as heroin and cocaine.

But legislation is moving through Congress in the form of H.R. 1866, the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009.” It would exclude industrial hemp from the Schedule 1 list, making it legal for American farmers to once again grow the crop that was essential in the empowerment of our original 13 colonies and the early United States.

What is the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana? The major difference is the level of THC, the psychoactive molecule that induces the “high” associated with quality marijuana. From flowers that aren’t allowed to pollinate, this substance swells into resinous buds that are used for the “marijuana effect.”

Industrial hemp is allowed to pollinate, blessing humanity with one of the healthiest, handiest and tastiest oils known, hempseed oil. Therefore, hemp strains are selected for high seed production, not to get people “high.”

Another major difference between hemp and marijuana is that industrial hemp (fiber) strains are grown in compact plots (four inches between stalks), so the plant reaches tall, not spreading wide, in contrast with marijuana plants. This is done to maximize vertical fiber production for many useful products – and doesn’t produce THC buds.

You may ask why the United States is the only major industrial power not utilizing the vast potential of hemp. In a nutshell, even though Henry Ford envisioned a car “grown [and fueled] from the ground up” by hemp, certain interests in the 1920s and ’30s thought that our nation should be powered with finite petroleum. This shortsightedness has propelled America into our modern-day energy challenge.

Fortunately, the veil of ignorance is lifting, so we, a renewed group of consciously aware West Virginia citizens, can lead the charge for hemp education and empowerment.

The year 2002 marked monumental legislation on the state level – SB 447, the “Industrial Hemp Development Act” was signed into West Virginia law. We Mountaineers are one of only eight states that have hemp farming legislation in place. We are ahead of the curve, proving that our legislators are knowledgeable on the subject and supportive of this visionary shift.

I urge dedicated citizens to pick up pens and push federal passage of H.R. 1866, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009. This could enable our state and nation to again use what Popular Science magazine in 1938 called “the next billon-dollar crop.”

Look up something on industrial hemp, either at the public library on the Internet. You will be surprised to learn it can be used for auto bodies and interiors, ethanol fuel, internal lubricants, garments as rugged as denim or smooth as silk, particle board, strong newsprint, gentle inks, insulation, paint, plastic, varnish, soap, mulch, animal feed, birdseed, granola, protein-rich flour, salad oil, and nutritional supplements – all biodegradable.

By Patrick Corcoran. Source.

 

Mexico on the Verge of Decriminalizing Drug Possession

June 22, 2009 – The Mexican legislature has quietly approved a bill, supported by President Felipe Calderon, that will decriminalize possession of illegal drugs in small amounts. Calderon’s predecessor, Vicente Fox, planned to sign a similar bill until pressure from the Bush administration led him to reconsider. The Obama administration apparently has not raised a fuss about the current bill, which Calderon is expected to sign any day now. The Los Angeles Times reports that the bill’s opponents worry that Mexican cities will “become Latin Amsterdams, flooded by drug users seeking penalty-free tokes and toots.” Since the Mexican government does not plan to copy the Dutch policy of tolerating the open distribution of “soft drugs,” that scenario seems implausible (although you might think Mexico would welcome more tourists, especially given the negative publicity generated by recent prohibition-related violence). At the same time, more lenient treatment of drug users, while certainly an improvement, does nothing to address the violence, corruption, and disorder associated with the illegal drug trade.

The Times says Calderon’s strategy is to “distinguish between small-time users and big-time dealers, while re-targeting major crime-fighting resources away from the former and toward the latter and their drug-lord bosses.” The secretary general of Mexico’s National Institute of Penal Sciences tells the Times:

The important thing is…that consumers are not treated as criminals. It is a public-health problem, not a penal problem.

If consumers should not be treated as criminals, presumably because drug use is not a crime, why should the people who merely aid and abet this noncrime be treated as criminals? The traditional response is that drug users are victims of drug dealers, who get them hooked on products that override their ability to choose. As I argue in my book Saying Yes, this is a misleading description of addiction, which in any event is not the typical outcome of illegal drug use. If drug users are victims of drug dealers, rather than consumers whose demand creates the market that the drug dealers serve, then it is equally true that drinkers are victims of distillers, brewers, vintners, and bartenders. And if Mexican-style decriminalization had been the American government’s response to the problems associated with alcohol prohibition, it would have amounted to doing nothing, since simple possession and consumption of alcohol, as opposed to production and distribution, was not banned by the 18th Amendment or the Volstead Act.

In a recent column, I pointed out that the “drug-related” violence in Mexico is due not to drugs (or guns) but to prohibition. In February I discussed the drug policy prescriptions of three former Latin American presidents who perceive the problems created by the war on drugs but, like Calderon, are not quite ready to call it off. In March I noted that the medical/public health model they advocate is not necessarily inconsistent with prohibition. Source.

 

Oregon – Roadblocks to Growing Industrial Hemp Removed in Bipartisan Senate Vote

June 20th, 2009 – (SALEM, Ore.) – In a bipartisan vote, the Oregon Senate voted to join 15 other states today by passing legislation that outlines state practices for the growth and sale of industrial hemp. SB 676 authorizes the production, possession and commerce in industrial hemp commodities and products.

“Senate Bill 676 will allow farmers to re-establish industrial hemp as an agricultural crop in Oregon,” said Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Eugene), who carried the bill on the floor. “Industrial hemp is an innovative crop that is regaining its popularity across the globe. This legislation sets the course for growing and selling this high-demand crop in Oregon.”

SB 676 identifies that industrial hemp is an agricultural product that is subject to regulation by the Department of Agriculture and requires that all growers and handlers have an industrial hemp license issued by the Department. Additionally, the Department will establish a field inspection program, a certifications process for hemp seed, and a civil penalty procedure for violations.

“We heard a lot of positive testimony on this bill in committee,” said Senator Jackie Dingfelder (D-Portland), chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. “Senate Bill 676 clears the way for this product to be added to Oregon’s diverse portfolio of agricultural products.”

The terms “hemp” and “industrial hemp” refer specifically to varieties of Cannabis sativa characterized by low levels of THC, marijuana’s primary psychoactive chemical. These strains are cultivated for industrial use only. Hemp fiber is amenable to use in a wide range of products including carpeting, home furnishings, construction materials, auto parts, textiles, and paper. Hemp seed, an oilseed, likewise has many uses, including industrial oils, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food.

Industrial hemp was grown in the United States since colonial times but was banned in 1970 when it was redefined as marijuana. Currently, manufacturers and producers must import hemp into the country since they cannot buy domestic hemp from American farmers.

SB 676 passed out of Full Ways and Means on a 19-3-0 vote and now goes to the House for consideration.

Source:

 

Criminalizing marijuana carries a high cost

Desperate times require Americans to rethink the nation’s never-ending war on drugs and its effects.

June 16th, 2009 – If you believe a pothead could never amount to anything, think again. President Barack Obama, Michael Phelps and Bill Gates were all potheads.

While some potheads amount to nothing, others grow up to become president.

Yet still, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 43 seconds in the United States and billions of dollars in law enforcement and correction costs are pumped into the system to enforce marijuana laws. A complete overhaul of the current policy is required to reap the benefits of legalizing marijuana.

Marijuana has therapeutic and medicinal effects, and is much less harmful when compared to other legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. The use of weed has not claimed a single life in this nation’s history. Many anti-marijuana groups will bash me for that repeated fact and inform me that marijuana use can result in dependence on the drug. Sure it could, but so do alcohol and tobacco, the effects of which are far more pronounced for the human body and result in the combined deaths of 875,000 Americans every year.

Legalization would bring useful revenue into the government. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the US spends $12.1 billion on law enforcement and court costs and $16.9 billion in correction costs every year. That is a lot of money the government is spending on preventing marijuana, the production of which has increased ten times over the past ten years, and has a production profit which is more than the combined production of wheat and corn in the US. You might as well have Cannabis Crispies with milk every morning.

Moreover, legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana can bring about $7.6 billion dollars for the government and free up an additional $7 billion dollars in taxpayer money. If the government implemented a tax, it could provide a $150 tax subsidy to every person in America.

The legalization of marijuana would also prevent the spread of other harmful drugs and eliminate the black market. A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor accused the green leaf of being the “gateway” to other drugs like cocaine and heroin. With legalization, no longer would it be required to stop by the alley and purchase a joint from a dealer who also happens to be dealing cocaine or heroin. With the elimination of the street dealers, the spread of other illicit drugs could be decreased and one could safely walk into Dissmore’s to purchase some marijuana.

Full legalization would also reduce the crime rate. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, marijuana production and profit supports organized crime and street gangs. Legalization would stop such financial gains and free up police personnel as well as provide excess funds to tackle other orders of violence on the streets that require more attention.

The legalization of marijuana is in no way an excuse to earn more revenue and grow our economy. The benefits of legalization are far more encompassing than that.

People need to rid themselves of the societal stigma surrounding marijuana, educate themselves and make an informed decision on its legalization. The constraints of society and an ill-informed perception should never limit the growth and progress of the people.

During the three minutes that it took you to read this article, about five people were arrested for simple possession of marijuana, and $171,232 was spent on law enforcement and correction costs.

By Qasim Hussaini. Source.

 

Rhode Island compassion centers legislation on governor’s desk!

June 14, 2009 – Medical marijuana patients in Rhode Island are on the verge of having safe access to their medicine legally under state law. The House and Senate have each overwhelmingly passed the twin bills to allow the non-profit distribution of medical marijuana, with the Senate most recently approving the House bill in a 31-2 vote on June 9. This incredible legislative support has been heartwarming, and we are on the cusp of giving the state’s more than 600 medical marijuana patients safe and consistent access to the medicine they need!

H. 5359 and S. 0185 have been transmitted to Governor Donald Carcieri (R). He has until next Tuesday, June 16 to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature. Unfortunately, given the governor’s history of vetoing compassionate medical marijuana bills in the past, we expect him to thwart the will of the people and the legislature and veto the bill. Then, we are hopeful both chambers will vote to override the governor’s veto. In order to do so, 60% of each chamber must vote for the legislation. Our compassion centers legislation has consistently garnered over 90% support in both chambers this year, and we are excited for these last historic voting opportunities.

After one of the votes, Representative Thomas C. Slater (D-Providence), H. 5359′s sponsor, commented, “We recognized when we created the medical marijuana program that marijuana has a legitimate medical application, and that patients should have access to it if they need it. But we forced them to deal with criminals in order to get it. We’re talking about very sick people, and they shouldn’t have to put themselves at risk to get their medicine.” This is a personal issue for Representative Slater, as he has been diagnosed with two types of cancer and is currently undergoing treatment. He is one of four of the six siblings in his family with the disease, and lost his father, brother, and uncle to cancer. The Providence Journal recently did a very moving profile of him and his years of fighting on behalf of seriously ill patients and other disadvantaged Rhode Island residents. Source.