Connecticut

[Midnight toker]

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Drug law reform group to be speak


By JAMES NASH
jnash@thestamfordtimes.com
The North East Reporter

Peter Christ calls U.S. drug policy a linchpin issue that affects American life and the country's international relations with disastrous consequences.

Christ, 60, is a retired police captain from Tonawanda, N.Y., a suburb of Buffalo that's home to about 80,000 people.

Christ said he realized early in his police career that the nation's war on drugs wasn't working. He started speaking about ending the prohibition against illegal drugs in 1993 and is a leading force behind LEAP — Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Christ is scheduled to address the Stamford Rotary at the Holiday Inn Select on Oct. 3. His engagement is part of a Connecticut tour that includes LEAP speakers talking to more than three dozen organizations across the state throughout September and October.

Christ said this week the prohibition against what are called Schedule 1 drugs, including narcotics and opiates, should end.

"I believe that all these drugs have so much potential to harm individuals and society, they must be regulated and controlled," he said.

Regulation of these drugs would keep them away from children, Christ said, while ending the criminal drug business the same way repealing prohibition ended gangster profits from alcohol sales and state-sponsored lotteries finished off the numbers rackets.

"We put them out of business." Christ said. "We don't have 12 and 13 year olds running numbers for the mob. I want to take this market away from thieves and criminals."

Ending the prohibition on illegal drugs must be a federal initiative, Christ said, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively trumped California law concerning the legal use of medical marijuana.

Christ has no illusions legislation will soon be drafted decriminalizing and regulating presently illegal drugs.

"It's still pretty much political suicide," he said. "Elected political officials are not going to take a position until they feel there are enough people who support us."

Christ said LEAP has 5,000 members — 500 from law enforcement - police, parole and probation officers, judges and prosecutors.

LEAP is trying to increase public support by sending speakers to civic groups such as Rotary, Lions and Kiwanis clubs, and chambers of commerce in order to reach "solid members of their communities" who are either policy makers themselves or politically influential.

Christ said when the prohibition on alcohol ended, it took the country another 50 years to face up to it's alcohol problem. Since then, he said the activities of groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have cut drunk driving fatalities dramatically.

LEAP maintains the so-called war on drugs has cost a trillion dollars and represents failed policies that have increased incidences of death, disease, crime and addiction while putting front- line police and law enforcement officers in jeopardy.

Christ said the media is partially to blame regarding widely-held misconceptions relating to illegal drugs.

When stories run with headlines noting "drug-related" crimes, Christ said it is rarely an addict or drugs user at the center of the story. More than likely, the crime being written about relates to the "drug business," not the drug user, he said.

"Most of this violence is not connected to people being high on drugs, but related to drug territory." Christ said.

Christ said it is common to read press accounts of major drug busts when law enforcement officers arrest dozens of people as the result of investigations spanning years.

After the arrests, Christ said police observe what happens next. "Then they watch the streets, and if the shooting starts, then they know they got the key people," Christ said.

"After a couple of months, the shooting calms down," Christ said. "Then we know we have to start the next two-year investigation."

Meanwhile, "the availability doesn't change," Christ said.

When people make income or spend money, that information shows up on tax forms, Christ said. But money spent to buy the recent bumper crop of Afghan poppies will be untraceable, and some of those proceeds will likely go to people who want to kill Americans, he said.

If the end to prohibition on illegal drugs is ever achieved, Christ said law enforcement should have nothing to do with regulation, suggesting medical experts should be given a role.

LEAP has a Web site at www.leap.cc.

[palmspringsbum]

Winning Medical Marijuana a Priority in Connecticut

The Drug Policy Alliance
Wednesday, October 18, 2006


In 2004 and 2005, Connecticut came very close to passing a compassionate use bill to provide patients with access to physician-recommended marijuana. But both years, the bill got mired in political debates and never made it out of the legislature.

Drug Policy Alliance Network, the lobbying arm of the Drug Policy Alliance, is now working hard to break through the politics and win medical marijuana legislation in Connecticut for 2007.

Legislation currently on the books is written such that doctors who recommend medical marijuana and patients who use it are not protected from criminal prosecution. The law must be fixed in order to make medical marijuana accessible and improve the quality of life for people who are seriously ill.

Such a fix would bring the law in line with the views of voters. 83% of Connecticut residents support medical marijuana, according to a 2004 report by UConn Center for Survey Research and Analysis.

"Compassionate Use in Connecticut has an overwhelming support from Connecticut residents, as well as from health organizations such as the Connecticut Nurses Association," said Gabriel Sayegh, director of DPA's state organizing and policy project. "Now is the time to turn that support into momentum for the 2007 legislative session."

The governor and all state legislators are up for re-election this fall, so drug policy reform supporters in Connecticut are contacting their legislators now to let them know passage of medical marijuana remains a high priority for voters.

"Eleven states now have working medical marijuana laws, health organizations around the world recognize the medical value of marijuana, and the federal Institute of Medicine found that marijuana provides relief to some patients," said Sayegh. "The most effective methods for managing pain associated with conditions such as cancer or HIV/AIDS should be determined by doctors and their patients, not by politicians who refuse to accept the evidence."

<hr class=postrule>
If you live in Connecticut, find out how to get involved. You can also join the DPA Action Network to receive state-specific DPA alerts about reform work in Connecticut. Make sure to fill in your state when you sign up.

[palmspringsbum]

Easton man fined for marijuana possession

MICHAEL P. MAYKO mmayko@ctpost.com
Article Last Updated: 01/25/2007 11:42:01 PM EST
The Connecticut Post

BRIDGEPORT — A federal judge spared an Easton man jail time Thursday after hearing that he used marijuana he admitted having for medical purposes.

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas fined Arthur Christiani, 50, of Fair Oak Drive, $1,000 for possession of marijuana. Previously, Christiani agreed to forfeit his BMW, which he drove to pick up marijuana.

"I'm very sorry for what I did," Christiani told the judge. Both Assistant U.S. Attorney Felice Duffy and J. Robert Gulash, Christiani's lawyer, said the defendant used marijuana for medical purposes.

After the proceedings, neither would say what the illness or purpose was.

Christiani pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor charge of possessing marijuana. He faced up to six months in prison.

But Nevas said he saw no need for further supervision by the U.S. Probation Department since Christiani has spent the past 18 months being supervised.

Duffy said Christiani was recorded on a FBI wiretap placing a marijuana order on Dec. 16, 2004. That stemmed from an ongoing FBI investigation into drug trafficking by Juan Marrero, a Bridgeport businessman. Marrero has pleaded guilty to conspiring to traffic in cocaine and is awaiting sentencing.

[palmspringsbum]

CT Residents: Support Medical Marijuana in Connecticut!

January 30, 2007
The Drug Policy Alliance


As you know, this year our agenda in Connecticut includes winning medical marijuana and school zone reforms. I have some important information to share with you about recent developments in the Connecticut General Assembly, and I want to ask for your help in passing important legislation!

<span class=postbold>Medical Marijuana</span>

We now have a medical marijuana bill in Connecticut! Recently, Rep. Penny Bacchiochi (R-Somers) re-introduced her medical marijuana bill, HB 6175. Supporters this year are many, and include Rep. Marie Kirkley-Bey, the Deputy Speaker of the House.

You can help win medical marijuana in Connecticut by taking action now to support House Bill 6715: An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana. Send a message to your legislator, urging their support of medical marijuana.


In the last couple of years, your support has been crucial to keeping this legislation on the agenda at the state capital. We have come so close, only to be stymied at the last minute by zealots and drug war bureaucrats. We cannot, and we must not let that happen again this year.

Please contact your legislators now and urge them to support this bill today!

There are three other actions you can take right now to support medical marijuana in Connecticut:
<ul class=postlist>
<li> Send a message to your legislator now, urging them to support medical marijuana. </li>

<li> <span class=postbold>Forward this action alert to five of your friends.</span> Every time a person contacts their legislator about HB 6175, it increases the likelihood that the bill will pass! </li>

<li> <span class=postbold>Help us get in contact with sympathetic doctors and patients.</span> This is especially important. If you know of a doctor or patients who will help, email gsayegh@drugpolicy.org or call (212) 613-8048. </li>
</ul>
With your support, we can pass HB 6175 and win compassionate medical marijuana legislation in Connecticut in 2007!

If you have any questions about medical marijuana in Connecticut, contact me at gsayegh@drugpolicy.org.

<span class=postbold>School Zones</span>

Rep. Marie Kirkley-Bey has introduced House Bill 6064, which would require a study of the impact of "drug free" school zone laws in Connecticut.

This is important legislation because the impact on urban communities is so broad. After we released our report on school zones last year, we worked hard to get a reform bill through the legislature. But legislators were resistant to the legislation, and balked at reforms. This year, we're going after the data we need to show, conclusively, that these laws are ineffective, wasteful, and racist. We'll be in touch with you soon about this bill.

In the meantime, please remember to ACT NOW and send your legislator an alert about HB 6175, medical marijuana! And please forward this email!

Thanks for all you do. Together, we'll win sensible reforms in Connecticut.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Sayegh
Drug Policy Alliance Network

[palmspringsbum]

Medical marijuana topic of high debate in Wilton forum

by Justin Reynolds, The Wilton Bulletin (CT)
December 6th, 2007


The topic of the legalization of medical marijuana has elicited high debate in the past, and last week was no exception. The Wilton League of Women Voters continued its “hot topic” discussion series, hosting a forum on the topic in the Brubeck Room of the Wilton Library last Thursday.

The league invited two politicians to discuss the legal aspects of medical marijuana and two physicians to talk about the medical side.

State Rep. Toni Boucher, Republican of the 143rd District, spoke against the legalization of medical marijuana while State Rep. Michael Lawlor, Democrat of the 99th District, voiced his support.

“For me, this issue has a lot to do with the integrity of the criminal justice system,” said Mr. Lawlor, a lawyer and professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven. “When the criminal justice system is fighting a losing battle” we must “reconsider whether or not the criminal justice system is the right venue” to address the issue.

Mr. Lawlor said most law enforcement officers would not arrest someone for possession of marijuana if it was clear that person was using the drug to help combat a “legitimate illness.”

Mr. Lawlor told the story of Mark Braunstein, a librarian at Connecticut College, who became paralyzed from the waist down in 1990. Mr. Braunstein has been very vocal of the fact he grows marijuana in his house and smokes it to help alleviate his pain.

“To this day, no law enforcement agency has taken action against him,” Mr. Lawlor said.

Because this law is not being enforced, Mr. Lawlor said he believes it needs to be changed.

“Without a modification of the law, people will lose respect for the criminal justice system,” he said.

Earlier this year, Connecticut’s House of Representatives passed a bill that would have legalized medical marijuana, by a vote of 89-58. The bill would have allowed sick patients to grow up to four, four-foot plants. The state Senate voted in favor of the bill, 23-13.

Mr. Lawlor said the bill was “debated at great length” and “modified significantly.”

“We talked about all the legitimate concerns,” Mr. Lawlor said. “It seems to me this proposal met the legitimate concerns of the people who raised them.”

Mr. Lawlor described the vote as “overwhelmingly bipartisan.”

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, however, vetoed the bill in June, which would have made Connecticut the 14th state to have legalized medical marijuana.

Ms. Boucher supported Ms. Rell in her veto, and continued her support of the governor’s stance on the issue at Thursday’s forum.

“Proponents have gone a long way to say the drug is benign,” Ms. Boucher said. “The facts just simply are not there.”

Ms. Boucher said studies have shown marijuana can lead to tumors, damaged lungs, cancer and impaired memory and learning.

“Legalizing marijuana for any purpose undermines everything we’ve done,” Ms. Boucher said. “It is not the same drug of the 60s and 70s. It is much more powerful and addictive.”

“We want them to live a healthy life,” Ms. Boucher said of potential medical marijuana patients. By prescribing them marijuana, patients could develop “a secondary problem that could be worse than the first,” she said.

Ms. Boucher went on to say legalizing medical marijuana was “counterintuitive to everything we know.”

An elected official’s job is “to improve the living of people we represent,” she said. “It does not save or improve lives,” she said of marijuana.

Larry Katz, a father who lost his son to an overdose in 1996, commented to the panel after their presentations.

“We have to set clear guidelines for young people,” Mr. Katz said, adding that legalizing medical marijuana is “giving children another reason to take it” by telling their parents it’s a medicine.



<span class=postbigbold>Medical side </span>


Two physicians who treat cancer patients were also on the panel. Dr. Andrea Ruskin, of Norwalk Hospital, and Dr. Seyed Aleali, of St. Vincent’s Hospital generally agreed they wouldn’t prescribe marijuana to their patients and that enough research hasn’t yet been done to conclude there are enough medicinal benefits of the drug.

“I’m not so convinced that marijuana is a great pain reliever. I’m not so convinced marijuana controls nausea,” Dr. Ruskin said, adding that more studies need to be done to verify or disprove these claims.

If new studies show medicinal benefits, “I would be all for approval,” she said.

“What is lacking is a mode of delivery for THC,” Dr. Aleali said of marijuana’s most psychoactive chemical, tetrahydrocannabinol. “We have drugs that are much more powerful” than marijuana, he said. “As a physician, I think I have enough stuff at my disposal.”

Selectman Ted Hoffstatter said while it was “great” to have the forum on a controversial topic, he “felt it was one sided.”

“Studies all over the world have been done to show the possible benefits” of medicinal marijuana, Mr. Hoffstatter said.

“I’ve heard story after story after story of people who were otherwise law-abiding citizens who told us that this helped them,” Mr. Lawlor said of medical marijuana patients. “Feeling that they’re breaking the law adds to their suffering. To me that’s the most compelling argument.”

Since the law would allow patients to grow four, four-foot plants, Ms. Boucher said it would be difficult to monitor whether it was obeyed.

“The opportunity for abuse here is just so high,” she said. “Four plants can produce thousands of joints of marijuana” and “there’s no way to administer dosage.”

The medical community has yet to come to an agreement on its stance on medical marijuana, the doctors said.

“It would put us in an awkward situation as doctors,” Dr. Ruskin said. “There’s no consensus in the medical community that the benefits outweigh the risk. I would have a lot of ethical issues writing prescriptions.”

“I don’t think there is any reason for us with all this information to use marijuana as a pain reliever,” Dr. Aleali said, adding legalization of medical marijuana will “never ever” occur, “not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime.”


<span class=postbigbold>Bigger picture </span>


While the forum was centered around the discussion of medical marijuana, many agreed the push to approve medical marijuana was part of the issue of outright legalization of the drug and the effect it might have on children.

Ms. Boucher said more people are now seeking treatment for marijuana than for heroin and cocaine.

“We know we have a system where over 90% are arrested for personal use,” Mr. Hoffstatter said, adding it “doesn’t mean they’re addicts” and that they’re “mandated to go to treatment” by the courts.

Clifford Thornton, the Green Party’s candidate for governor of Connecticut in 2006, attended the event. Mr. Thornton also serves on the Board of Directors for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

“I think there was a lot of mis- and dis-information given,” Mr. Thornton said in an interview following the event. “It was a decent forum, but most of the people there were uninformed.”

Mr. Thornton took the approach of listener at the forum, as he said he wanted to sit back and hear what people thought about the issue and not influence the discussion himself.

“What I picked up is that a lot of people are still in the dark,” he said. “I’m not arguing for drug use, I’m arguing for a reasonable approach to this problem,” he said, adding the problem is “created and sustained by the very laws themselves.”

Mr. Lawlor repeated he was mostly interested in the criminal justice side of the issue.

“The goal of our policy should be to prevent the use of drugs,” he said, adding that our country’s current policy doesn’t seem to eliminate drug use.

“How well are we doing with the War on Drugs?” Mr. Lawlor asked. “Thirty years is enough time to see if the policy is working. We’re spending more money to run prisons in Connecticut than we are spending on colleges. What we’re doing now is just not working.”

Mr. Lawlor said poll data suggests as many as 80% of Americans favor decriminalization of marijuana.

“It’s important to point out that on this issue, if you look at polls, an overwhelming percent support the idea of decriminalization and regulating medical marijuana,” he said.

“I do feel like polls are not accurate,” Ms. Boucher said, adding “questions are phrased unfairly.”

“Yes, we have a massive problem here” but if we legalize medical marijuana “our problems can be magnified, our costs can be magnified,” she said. “The agenda is not about medical marijuana, but about the legalization of drugs.”

Mr. Thornton said Connecticut stood to gain millions of dollars from legalized marijuana, and agreed with Ms. Boucher’s sentiment that legalizing medical marijuana is a step towards pushing for the legalization of marijuana.

“It’s definitely a wedge issue,” Mr. Thornton said. “Don’t get me wrong here, the push for medical marijuana is for sick people, however — and to me it’s a no-brainer — it is definitely a wedge issue and the broader issue is the outright legalization of marijuana.”

“What we need to do is expose the issue,” he said. “In this history of man, no one has died from direct ingestion of marijuana. People are never going to stop using this drug, at least that’s what history shows.”

“I do not advocate the use of drugs in any way, shape, or form,” Mr. Hoffstatter said, adding he thinks the medical marijuana bill, however, “should have passed.”

[palmspringsbum]

Hemp Prohibition Does Nothing But Harm

The Daily Campus
By: Greg Pivarnik
Posted: 2/26/08


In order to fully understand the opposition to marijuana reform, it is important to investigate who already benefits from the status quo prohibition. Besides recreation, there are many other uses for marijuana. Many people benefit, while many others suffer negative consequences of prohibition. In most cases it is the corporations who benefit, while the individual citizens are the ones left out in the cold.

There are three different degrees of possible marijuana reform, all of which have different ramifications for society. They are the legalization of hemp, the medicalization of marijuana and finally the legalization of marijuana. Only the last step is a full repeal of marijuana prohibition. With hemp and medical marijuana, it is still possible for prohibition of marijuana as a recreational drug. This column will discuss the asinine policy of hemp prohibition, while medicalization and legalization will be discussed in their own subsequent columns.

When most people think of hemp, they inaccurately think of marijuana. Specifically, they do not recognize the difference between hemp and the mind-altering affects of the demonized marijuana plants. The lack of education has led hemp to be banned by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 as a Schedule I drug.

Hemp is not marijuana. Yes, it does come from the Cannabis plant, like marijuana, but it cannot get a person high, which is the main difference between the two. Hemp bred for industrial purposes usually has very low THC content, which is the psychoactive chemical in marijuana. In many cases, the THC content is so low that is near impossible to use as a recreational drug. This is because many of the species and subspecies of Cannabis used in hemp production do not yield high amounts of THC.

Hemp itself is harvested from the stalks and parts of the plants other the bud in which the marijuana is located. There are many benefits to producing hemp which include the speed and ease at which it grows combine with the environmentally friendly benefits of the products that can be made from it.

Hemp products encompass almost all parts of the Cannabis plant and can be used to make foods, fuels, and fibers. The only edible parts of the plant with any nutritional value are the seeds.The seeds are extremely nutritious and are a source of carbohydrates, proteins, fibers and essential fatty acids. Essential fatty acids are an important part of a healthy diet and are not harmful like saturated and trans fats. The seed also is not psychoactive and cannot be used as a drug. The seeds most resemble a nut and can be shelled and eaten raw, used to make numerous foods, or can be converted in to hemp seed oil and used in cooking.

To get an idea of how versatile hemp is, here are a short list of products that can be made from hemp - food and others: snack bars, cookies, trail mix, coffee, beer, nutbutter, chips, pasta, tortillas, hummus, butter, salad dressing, milk, cheese, non-dairy ice cream, burgers, oils, lotions, lip balms, conditioners, shampoos, soaps, shaving products, lamp lighting, household detergents, stain removers, varnishes, resins, paints, twine, cordage, textiles, clothing, paper, webbing, non-woven matting, auto parts (ie door panels, dashboards, luggage racks), building materials, animal feed, plastics, packaging materials, skate boards, and most importantly biofuel. All in all, there are almost 25,000 environmental friendly products that can be derived from hemp.

Hemp is also not harmful for the environment. It can be grown organically because there are very few pests that feed off of it. The Cannabis plant only has a growing cycle of 100 days and is a natural weed suppressant so the soil remains weed free for next planning (that is if one does not consider the Cannabis plant a weed itself). The short growing cycle of Cannabis, combined with the number of products that hemp can manufacture, makes it a very viable and important natural resource that should be utilized.

However, there is a caveat, and that is that the United States currently forbids people to grow hemp with a permit from the DEA. And surprise, surprise, the DEA rarely grants permits for large scale productions. The reasoning, which can be found on the DEA Web site, is that hemp contains THC. Hence, hemp is a Schedule I substance under the CSA, as is heroin and LSD, despite that fact that it is impossible to get high from it. To realize the stupidity of the U.S. government policy towards hemp, one only has to look at that the fact the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not permit hemp production. The only hemp products that are allowed in this country are ones that are manufactured outside of it.

So, are there problems with hemp? Maybe farming and irrigating enough land to grow hemp would be a problem. But the sustainability, short growing season and ease of manufacturing offset the onetime costs. It is far better for the environment to use hemp fiber than to constantly cut down trees, that will never be replaced, to obtain paper and wood. And maybe the fuel produced by hemp may harm the environment, but any fuel made will the environment, biofuels just do at a miniscule rate compared to oil.

So the essential question in the end is - who benefits from hemp prohibition? Well, it is not the environment or the citizens. Hemp is a quick growing, renewable, and biodegradable resource, with health benefits that have been documented in human history for over ten thousand years. This includes the United States where it was grown during the colonial era and World War II. So in the end, the winners are the corporations that would be rivaled by hemp. All companies including oil refineries, textile mills, paper manufactures, plastic producing companies and many others who benefit from making environmentally harmful products would be forced out of business or would have to change their ways.

The only other beneficiaries are those, such as people at the DEA, that take on the moral crusade against a product which does not even result in intoxication. Yes, hemp does contain THC, but there is not enough to experience any psychological effects. The benefits, which include the nutritional value of the hemp seed, far outweigh the negative consequences, if there are any to begin with. Legalization of industrial hemp will not lead to increased marijuana usage as some fear, a fear left over the early years of marijuana prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s, and instead it will only benefit the economy, environment and individuals of this country.



<small>Weekly columnist Greg Pivarnik is an 8th-semester molecular and cell biology major. His columns run on Tuesdays. He can be contacted at Gregory.Pivarnik@UConn.edu </small>

[palmspringsbum]

Medical Marijuana Laws Benefit Big Business

The Daily Campus
By: Greg Pivarnik
Posted: 3/4/08

Marijuana has medicinal uses. Despite numerous scientific studies and the development of synthetic medicines derived from cannabis, the United States government appears to disagree with this statement. Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug according to the DEA, which only benefits the pharmaceutical companies who now have a monopoly on the therapeutic effects of a plant that can be grown with little effort.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA lists and categorizes drugs, illegal and pharmaceutical, into five categories or schedules. According to the DEA Web site, the drugs are placed in a schedule based upon "the substance's medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability." Schedule I drugs are considered the most addictive and have no medical use and are considered the most dangerous. Schedule II drugs have some medical benefits but are highly addictive and so on until Schedule V. Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug, along with heroin and LSD, because it has a "high potential for abuse" and "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Apparently though, PCP and cocaine have more of a medical basis considering they are Schedule II drugs.

Unfortunately, the rescheduling of marijuana is something that may be far off in the future, despite research pointing to the possible benefits of medicinal use. Scientists studying its medicinal properties have already found a number of possible medical uses. Most notably, marijuana can be used to treat pain and nausea associated with a number of diseases. It is mostly prescribed, in states that allow for its medicinal use, for pain and nausea associated with terminal illnesses. Many times marijuana has been found to be one of the more effective drugs to treat these symptoms. Extreme pain is often associated with severe illnesses such as cancers, AIDS and multiple sclerosis (MS). Marijuana also reduces nausea associated with chemotherapy and AIDS patients. It stimulates appetite and allows patients to eat so they do not lose an excessive amount of weight. Marijuana has been proven to be an effective treatment for neuropathic pain and can control muscle spasms in diseases like MS. However, MS is not the only disease associated with neuropathic pain. There are many other diseases and disorders that can benefit from possible treatments of marijuana. Marijuana has also been found to treat patients with glaucoma by relieving pressure in the eyeball and therefore possibly preventing the blindness associated with the disease. Lastly, there are also the well known calming affects of marijuana that could be used to treat severe anxieties and obsessive compulsive disorder.

The main reason that marijuana remains illegal, or at least not used as medication, is money. Too many companies in the pharmaceutical industry stand to lose too much money from competing with medicinal marijuana. The Pharmaceutical companies do research, create a synthetically made chemical for a treatment of a certain disease and then patent. U.S. patents last around 20 years and effectively give the company a monopoly on that drug. This in turn drives the price up for many years after FDA approval, until the patent runs out and generic forms of the drug are made available. The reason that drug companies would not want marijuana manufactured is that it can been grown cheaply and easily. It could effectively be a less costly alternative to the drug therapies that patients can access now and may treat myriad of disease that could infringe on the consumer market of other medications.

The amount of money derived from the pharmaceutical industry, and hence the lobbyists that work for them, has led to an inherent hypocrisy in U.S. policy towards marijuana. While listing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which supposedly has no medical benefits, the U.S. still allows pharmaceutical companies to conduct research and make products that harness the medicinal powers of THC, the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana. This already implies that marijuana has medicinal benefit and therefore should not be listed as a Schedule I drug. One such drug, Marinol, is already available for prescription use in the U.S. to treat the side effects associated with chemotherapy and AIDS patients. Another marijuana based drug, Sativex, which is used to treat MS, has already been approved in Canada and has begun trials in the U.S.

It is unfair for the government to conduct a smear campaign against medicinal marijuana, while at the same time allowing drug companies to purify it and market products for staggering amounts of profit. For instance, the base cost per year of Sativex in Canada $4,475. This price is only an estimate before pharmacy costs. On top of that, this estimate only takes into account a minimal amount of doses. Sativex is a spray administered via the mouth. The average dosage is five sprays a day. However, the dosage is variable up to 14 sprays, which would also increase the costs.

There are those that would say it is beneficial for the drug companies to purify the drugs because smoking marijuana is itself a health risk. A risk it may be, but taking any medicine is a risk. In fact, an article in Scientific America espoused a study that concluded that there is no scientific link between lung cancer and smoking marijuana. It was thought that THC "prompts aging cells to die before coming cancerous." A more recent study has seemed to confirm this conclusion. In a lab study, mice with tumors were injected with THC and showed a 50 percent decrease in tumor size after three weeks as compared with untreated mice. Though the studies are preliminary, they still nonetheless cast doubt on long held myths in marijuana.

In the end the only beneficiaries of the current medicinal marijuana policy in the United States are the drug companies. Patients are forced to dole out money for a synthetic form of a medicine that could be grown and obtained naturally and possibly far more cheaply. Of course a side effect of smoking marijuana is that one would get high. However, these side effects no different from warning labels on other medications that indicate drowsiness and warn people against driving and operating heavy machinery. In turn, the question can be asked - What makes a synthetically made chemical safer and more effective than a naturally growing plant? There is a risk when taking any medication. There have been well-known cases in which people have died taking prescription drugs. However, it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana.

In the end, the only difference between pharmaceutical marijuana and smoking marijuana is that pharmaceutical products create enormous amounts of revenue for big business, while medicinal marijuana would only benefit the citizens of this country that are in dire need of cheap and effective medication. And as always, the government sides with big business.



<small>Weekly columnist Greg Pivarnik is an 8th-semester molecular and cell biology major. His columns appear on Tuesdays. He can be contacted at Gregory.Pivarnik@UConn.edu. </small>

[palmspringsbum]

Gov. Rell Opposes Marijuana Decriminalization

The Courant
By Christopher Keating on March 30, 2009 12:48 PM

Gov. M. Jodi Rell is opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana - a highly controversial issue that could come up for a committee vote in the legislature as soon as Tuesday.

Some Democratic legislators have been pushing hard this year for a decriminalization of less than one ounce of marijuana, and Rell had not previously voiced a public view on the bill. Two of Rell's spokesmen stopped short Monday of using the word "veto,'' but they both said that Rell opposes the concept.

"The governor opposes illegal drug use and possession,'' said spokesman Rich Harris. "Whether it's a little or a lot, marijuana is an illegal drug.''

Rell had previously vetoed a bill that would have legalized the medical use of marijuana in June 2007, saying that she - as a cancer survivor - had sympathy for those who wanted to use marijuana for pain management. But she said her sympathy could not overcome her concerns that those seeking to obtain the drug would need to break the law to purchase it. The medical marijuana bill passed by 89 to 58 in the state House of Representatives and by 23 to 13 in the Senate, and both chambers fell shy in 2007 of the two-thirds margin needed to override a veto.

This year's bill would reduce the penalty for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana - from the current misdemeanor to an infraction with a maximum fine of $121.

The legislature's judiciary committee did not vote on the issue Monday, but there is a chance there will be a vote on Tuesday.

"I think the votes are definitely there,'' said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, the committee's longtime chairman. "I think even some of the Republicans will vote for it.''

Legislators are thinking of giving leeway to police and prosecutors regarding small amounts of marijuana in the same way as other crimes. For example, an officer can currently charge a person with criminal trespass, which is a crime, or simple trespass, which is only an infraction. In another case, officers could charge students at a rowdy college party with disorderly conduct, which is a crime, or creating a public disturbance, which is an infraction. In both cases, the incidents are virtually the same, but the officers have leeway over the charge, Lawlor said.

The whole point is to "not tie up the court with these really minor marijuana cases,'' Lawlor said. "It takes a lot of time and resources. People assume we're legalizing marijuana, and we're not.''

[palmspringsbum]

Marijuana bill gets committee OK

The Connecticut Post
By Ken Dixon STAFF WRITER
Posted: 03/31/2009 06:40:48 PM EDT


HARTFORD -- The legislative Judiciary Committee on Tuesday night approved legislation that would end criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and create mail-in fines of $250.

The bill was approved 23-11 after a two-hour debate and next moves to the state Senate.

Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the committee, offered an amendment -- approved in a voice vote of the committee -- that would reduce the threshold amount from a proposed one ounce, down to half an ounce. He said the advantage of the bill would be to save up-front court costs -- where prosecutors would only have to pay minimal attention and public defenders wouldn't have to get involved -- as well as stress on the probation system.

"If you had the ticket as an option, a lot of people would pay the ticket and not go to court," Lawlor said.

A second amendment, offered by Rep. William A. Hamzy, R-Plymouth, would create a $250 fine for possession, rather than the current $35-to-$90 normally required for infractions.

"I want the penalty, but it should act as a deterrent to this type of act, and I don't think a $35 penalty accomplishes that goal," Hamzy said before his amendment was adopted in a voice vote.

Sen. Edwin A. Gomes, D-Bridgeport, said he didn't like the prevailing argument that the penalty would be the equivalent of a speeding ticket.

Gomes argued that someone with a small amount of marijuana is less of a public hazard than a speeding motorist.

"He should be fined more than someone with a half ounce of marijuana in his pocket because he's more of a danger," Gomes said.

"I just don't understand why it's four ounces, one ounce or a single joint. I don't support it as public policy in Connecticut," said Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Derby.

Rep. John W. Hetherington, R-New Canaan, said lawmakers are avoiding the over-arching issue, which is whether marijuana should be legalized or not.

"I just think that we are begging the question about what we really feel about the use of marijuana, and we ought to address that and not take it up piecemeal," Hetherington said.

In a rare appearance, House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, who has spent 16 years as an expulsion officer for his hometown school district, implored the committee to reject the bill, proposed by Senate Majority Leader Martin M. Looney and Sen. Toni N. Harp, both D-New Haven. Cafero, who as an ex officio committee member is allowed to speak but not vote, said that in the last five years marijuana has become more prevalent compared to pills, crack cocaine and Ecstasy in schools.

Cafero estimated that he's heard 1,600 expulsion procedures. "And the vast majority of those cases deal with kids possessing marijuana," Cafero said. "The effects of marijuana on our youth and the effects it has on our education system cannot be underestimated."

He warned lawmakers that decriminalizing cannabis would make it more attractive to kids who might otherwise stay away from it. "What is the message we, as a Legislature, will send to them when we decriminalize possession of marijuana?" Cafero asked. "Are we saying it ain't that bad anymore?"

He said that his experience is that few kids, once found with marijuana and prosecuted, are caught again in schools. "The vast majority of people, you catch them once, they have that negative experience with the law, they don't do it again," Cafero said.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell indicated Tuesday night that she does not approve of the legislation, but her office stopped short of predicting a veto if it gets to her desk. "Whether it's a little or a lot, it's still an illegal substance," said Chris Cooper, Rell's spokesman. "It does not mean it will be approved by the House and Senate," he said of the committee vote.

The bill was based on a successful statewide referendum last year in Massachusetts that decriminalized possession of pot up to an ounce in weight. The Legislature's nonpartisan staff has projected that the bill could save about $11 million in diverting defendants from criminal court, while creating about $325,000 in revenue from fines. The legislation would not apply to youths under 18.

Currently, possession of marijuana totaling less that four ounces is a misdemeanor. People caught in possession of drug-related paraphernalia, including a plastic bag containing the weed, could still be charged with a misdemeanor, under the proposed bill.

Lawlor said that police could have the discretion to charge someone with possessing drug paraphernalia if they are caught with a single marijuana cigarette, because of the rolling paper present.

"Alcohol is the real problem, not marijuana," said Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, who favored the bill.

"To my mind, half an ounce is less troublesome than an ounce," said Sen. John A. Kissel, R-Enfield, ranking member of the committee. Kissel said he understands Looney's reasons to promote the legislation, but warned that today's marijuana is very powerful and more alluring to children than when he was growing up in the 1970s.

"I think if we go down in this direction, we're going to regret it," said Kissel, who supported the medical-marijuana bill.

He said there are already many types of diversionary programs for people busted with marijuana. "I do believe fundamentally that our criminal justice system affects behavior," Kissel said. "A lot of people make a mistake, but that mistake puts the fear of God in them."

Lawlor said he's never smoked pot but once gobbled marijuana-laced brownies "on a dare" as a young law student in Washington. "I did eat the brownies, and I had a very funny afternoon in the law library at the Library of Congress and it was more than five years ago, so it's past the statute of limitations," Lawlor said, laughing.

Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, R-Danbury, smiling, responded that Lawlor must have gotten "the munchies," a desire to eat junk food while under the influence.

"I guess when you combine it with the brownies you killed two birds with one stone," Lawlor replied.