New York

[palmspringsbum]

Weed lights up debate

Posted 01-24-2007 at 3:40PM
Polytechnic Online

Creighton Adsit
RPI College Democrats

A subject with which it is relatively easy to stir up a rousing debate about is the issue of the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Right now marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes in 11 states, including California. The only caveat is that the federal government does not recognize these state laws and will bust a medicinal user anyway. This results in considerable disputes between drug advocacy groups and federal agencies on what exactly the legal status of marijuana is, and what it should be.

Everyone can agree that smoking pot has some adverse physical and psychological effects, but that doesn’t mean that making the substance illegal is the proper course of action. Prohibition of marijuana does marginally reduce marijuana use by creating a deterrent, but it does so at a tremendous cost.

First of all, it drives the entire market for marijuana underground and creates a black market for the drug, resulting in less oversight. Conventional businesses are liable for damages if they misrepresent a product they are selling, and numerous federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration exist to make sure that certain quality standards for similar products are met. This is not true for drug dealers who are only held accountable for their actions if they happen to be caught. People who get sick from improperly prepared cannabis are left to fend for themselves, and are more likely to avoid medical treatment due to the nature of their ailment.

Another cost of prohibition is felt in the correctional system, which is flooded with those imprisoned for drug-related offenses every year. Law enforcement, incarceration and the judicial process all come at a considerable cost, a cost which is borne by the citizens of the United States.

Yet another cost is felt by the victims of violent drug-related crimes, which are motivated by the rampant profiteering that the drug trade creates. It would be much safer for everyone if the drug dealers, who are the ones who are really causing most of the trouble, were cut out of the entire operation by suppliers who would face the same scrutiny and oversight as the tobacco industry. Such a change, I might add, would take an underground, untraceable industry and make it taxable. It just seems strange to me that our society makes such a tremendous sacrifice just to keep cannabis out of the hands of only a few additional people.


<small><u>Editor’s Note</u>: “The Elephant’s Peanut Gallery” and “Straight from the Ass’s Mouth” run biweekly and are opinion columns granted by the Editorial Board to the College Republicans and the College Democrats.</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Party Of The Right

by Jay Jochnowitz, State Editor, Albany Times-Union (NY)
August 14th, 2007

Turns out Conservative Party members in New York are ok with marijuana — medical marijuana, at least — according to a new poll.

New Yorkers for Compassionate Care says a Mason-Dixon poll of 500 registered Conservatives in NY showed 55 percent supported a bill that would legalize marijuana for medical use, compared with 35 percent who opposed it. The bill has passed the Assembly.

The release from the group quotes a registered Conservative, Joel Peacock, who is said to rely on $36,000 worth of presciption drugs a year to deal with chronic pain from a 2001 car accident: “Support for this issue cuts across party lines. Addressing the needs of the suffering isn’t a liberal or conservative issue; it’s a matter of simple human compassion.”

The group also noted that earlier polls, including one by Siena Research Institute in 2005, have shown “strong, nonpartisan support for allowing medical marijuana.'’

[palmspringsbum]

State Sen. Morahan backs medical pot stance
By Matt King

Times-Herald Record
September 19, 2007

Albany — Days after medical marijuana advocates took out an ad targeting state Sen. Thomas Morahan, he reaffirmed his support for a bill allowing doctors to prescribe the drug for seriously ill patients.

And other local legislators think New York soon will become the 13th state to enact a medical marijuana law.

"I support allowing medical marijuana to go forward, providing it's under the control of a physician," said Sen. John Bonacic, R-C-Mount Hope. "There's strong support from members for medical marijuana controlled by physicians, but not blanket giveaways."

In June, the Assembly passed a medical marijuana law on a party-line vote, with Republicans voting against it.

Last week, the Marijuana Policy Project took out ads in papers across the state targeting a handful of Republican senators, including Morahan, R-C-New City.

The full-page ad in the Times Herald-Record features a member of the Conservative Party who wants legal marijuana to cope with chronic pain and advises readers to call Morahan and voice support for a new law.

"If the medical community and scientists feel there's an advantage to people with either terminal or serious illness, I wouldn't be in the way of that. In fact, I'd be supportive," Morahan said, echoing sentiments he expressed in an interview in June. "I can't speak for everyone, but I think the bill will pass."

But the Senate bill, supported by Morahan, Bonacic and other Republicans, deviates from the Assembly bill in ways that bother medical marijuana boosters and could set up a showdown between the houses.

The Assembly bill allows people certified as seriously or terminally ill by a licensed caregiver to grow and possess small amounts of the drug if a doctor recommends it.

The Senate bill puts the state in charge of the distribution system and essentially requires a doctor to prescribe marijuana to patients. Advocates say those changes could conflict with laws labeling marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, which means it can't be prescribed.

"That would reasonably cause doctors to fear getting in trouble with federal law," said Dan Bernath, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "This puts state employees at risk of arrest and invites federal mischief. We have the experience of 12 other states to know the only time the federal government gets involved in dispensary systems."

If the Senate legislation passes, differences in the bills would have to be worked out in a conference committee. The Legislature returns to work in January.

[palmspringsbum]

Baloney on medical marijuana

The Times Hearld-Record
September 21, 2007

There's a trick politicians use when they want to appear to be in favor of some issue that has strong public support. They craft legislation that suggests support but include a provision they know the other political party won't go for.

Senate Republicans are doing just that with medical marijuana. The Assembly approved a bill in June that allows people who are certified as seriously or terminally ill to grow and possess small amounts of marijuana, if recommended by a doctor. Nancy Calhoun of Blooming Grove and Tom Kirwan of Newburgh properly voted for the bill. The drug helps ease the chronic pain and nausea that accompany many serious illnesses.

Senate Republicans, including John Bonacic and Thomas Morahan, say they, too, support the idea but — and here's the poison pill — only if the system is controlled by doctors and the state. No "blanket giveaways," as Bonacic put it. The bill would have the state control distribution and, in effect, require a prescription from doctors. The problem is that the federal government labels marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning it can't be prescribed.

And the U.S. Justice Department under the Bush administration has been aggressive in going after doctors or government workers in states that have laws allowing what the Republican here suggest. This tends to make doctors wary of prescribing the drug.

This is not a war-on-drugs issue. Morahan, Bonacic and their GOP colleagues should trust the state's most seriously ill residents not to start dealing drugs from their death beds.

[palmspringsbum]

Our roadways are already becoming a battle zone, with alcohol abuse being the No. 1 reason for driving-related accidents and deaths. Just imagine adding marijuana to the lethal mix.

Dude! What planet do you live on? Marijuana is already in the 'mix'.

Wednesday February 13, 2008

Should marijuana be legalized?

<span class=postbigbold>Some readers think it'd be a good idea</span>

We asked our readers: Should marijuana be legalized for general consumption? Here are your responses:

<span class=postbold>JEFF EGAN, MAINE</span>

The legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes as contrasted for general use must be examined as separate topics. First, let's discuss medicinal purposes where it has been claimed that medical marijuana alleviates pain. Obviously, battling with chronic pain can be debilitating.

If scientific tests clearly validate that medical marijuana mitigates pain then it should be considered for legalization especially if there is no other remedy to comfort the afflicted person. There must, however, be stringent policy enacted otherwise it could easily digress into an out-of-control quagmire. It shouldn't be allowed for every ailment that comes along, lest it become, "Gee, doctor, this headache is a nuisance .., how about some medical marijuana for a buzz to help numb the pain?"

Now for the overall general use of marijuana: My viewpoint is an emphatic NO. Why would we contemplate legalizing something that can potentially cause both adverse health and mental problems? The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has concluded that marijuana usage can contribute to difficulty thinking clearly, anxiety attacks, feelings of paranoia, and dangerous impairment of driving skills. This last warning about driving is especially alarming. Our roadways are already becoming a battle zone, with alcohol abuse being the No. 1 reason for driving-related accidents and deaths. Just imagine adding marijuana to the lethal mix. Also, how would the police monitor the situation? We have DWI tests, so would DWS (driving while stoned) testing need to be implemented?

In conclusion, having witnessed the drug culture of the early 1970s, I would not legalize marijuana for general use. Why would we want to further burden a society that already is stockpiled with enough woes and worries?

<span class=postbold>JUDATH CARLEY, BINGHAMTON</span>

The question posed has been debated for longer than some of us have been alive. Politicians, educators, even some doctors have seen the potential good that can come with its use, although they would most likely be too afraid to comment.

With the large amount of man-made pharmaceuticals on the market, some of which can be harmful -- if not fatal -- we see that the "bad" side effects are sometimes disregarded because of the overwhelming good the drug can do. With this is mind, think of how many alcohol-related deaths there are, yet somehow alcohol remains available to anyone over the age of 21.

One can only imagine how much revenue, and taxes, can be made off the growing, packaging, and selling of this product.

Consuming marijuana can be more therapeutic than any liver-killing pill. The worthless stalks can be made into clothing, paper, and fuel. A chunk of barren land, incapable of farming, can sustain the plant and be revitalized for food crops the following year.

From what I hear, marijuana is as easy to grow as a houseplant. In the end, this fact is why I believe it will never be legal. If the everyday Joe could supply himself with it, the government could not tax it. Instead, that everyday Joe has to pay taxes on the alcohol, or overpriced pharmacy bills.

<span class=postbold>MATTHEW ROMAN, BINGHAMTON</span>

Should marijuana be legalized? Yes. This view is not just shared by stoners. In 1972, President Nixon's National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended decriminalization. In The Netherlands, use of hard drugs has gone down since marijuana was legalized. What is now a major criminal justice problem could easily become a minor medical issue.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2006, 12.7 percent of state inmates (over 33,000) and 12.4 percent of federal inmates (over 10,000) are imprisoned for marijuana offenses. According to the FBI, 44 percent of all illicit drug arrests are for marijuana. It costs more than $1 billion annually to imprison marijuana offenders. Some economists estimate the cost to be as high as $7 billion annually, taking into account all expenses. Since 1990, there have been over 10 million arrests for marijuana offenses.

The benefits of medicinal use of marijuana are well documented. It has uses in pain relief, especially neuropathic pain (resulting from nerve damage). It is effective in treating nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, movement disorders and insomnia. Its use as an appetite stimulant helps treatment of AIDS, cancer and dementia. Research suggests it may inhibit the growth of cancer cells (shown to be true in animal studies), aids in the reduction of arterial blockage and may be useful in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Anecdotal evidence indicates that it is as effective as many pharmaceutical tranquilizers without being addictive.

The industrial uses of hemp (treated as marijuana by the Drug Enforcement Agency) are many. It can be used for cordage, clothing, food, mulch, animal bedding and litter, paints, creams and plastics. It has one of the most popular seeds for feeding birds. It is used in composites, and to strengthen cement. Hemp produces 250 percent more fiber than cotton and 600 percent more fiber than flax when grown on the same land. One acre of hemp, grown with an annual rotation, produces as much pulp as 4.1 acres of trees in a 20-year period.

The processing of hemp pulp is much less polluting than the processing of wood pulp. Because hydrogen peroxide rather than chlorine bleach is used to whiten the paper, no dioxins are produced. The breakdown of lignin (which binds fibers) can be done with 1/4 to 1/7 as much sulfur based acid chemicals or with soda ash. Hemp pulp paper could replace 70 percent of wood pulp paper. Popular Mechanics has claimed that there are more than 25,000 environmentally friendly products from hemp.

What is marijuana prohibition really about? Why does the government put a beneficial substance that millions of people use regularly with minimal harmful side effects into the same class as cocaine and heroin? Could it be about the government trying to control our lives, and the protection of the profits of cotton, paper and pharmaceutical industries? The Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper. It is high time we had a declaration of independence from government intrusion into our private lives, especially when what is done is harmful to no one.

<span class=postbold>ERNEST PATTERSON, CHENANGO FORKS</span>

Legalize, regulate and tax it like liquor. Additionally, I think some accommodation would have to be reached with the federal Department of Justice. I would like to know what the current positions of our state and federal legislative employees (assemblymen/women, senators, representatives) are. How about getting up-to-date statements and a summary of their planned or extant legislation, and when they expect their bill(s) to see the light of day and be subject to a vote?

[palmspringsbum]

Pot plant case draws band of supporters

<span class="postbigbold">Kingston woman charged with marijuana violations states beliefs at hearing</span>

By ROBERT GAVIN, Staff writer | The Times-Union
First published in print: Saturday, August 29, 2009


ALBANY -- Abigail Storm Eggink makes no bones about her love for weed: She wants marijuana legal to grow, smoke and carry openly outside the New York state Capitol.

It is her "God-given" right, the Kingston woman insists, calling laws that ban marijuana outdated, hypocritical and unjust.

They still exist, however, which is why the activist from Ulster County was in City Court Friday.

And so -- joined by a band of supporters, including a middle-aged man humming a tune called "Free the Weed" as he played a small guitar -- in walked Eggink to face the state legal system.

She was arrested twice within a week for carrying a pot plant in public earlier this summer, first by Albany police on July 30 at South Pearl Street and Second Avenue, then outside the Capitol on July 3 by State Police.

Eggink, 58, is not just fighting the charges; she also wants to eliminate pot laws altogether. Her motion to dismiss the case stated the marijuana law is "fraudulent, invalid, overbroad and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States upon inescapable grounds."

The motion did not mince words.

"My beliefs are that cannabis hemp is a sacred gift from God for the healing of man and the healing of nations," she stated in court papers, " and that its possession is an innocent act which poses no threat or causes any damage to my neighbor and that these rights are God-given inalienable rights protected under the constitutions of the state of New York and the United States and that these rights cannot be lawfully swept away by opinion or the inferior laws of man or by this court."

She ended, stating, "I would further ask the court in the interest of justice to order the return of my cannabis hemp plants."

Judge Rachel Kretser did not quite touch that one. But she told Eggink she would issue a decision on her case within a month, that she does not even need to appear in court to learn. But Eggink said she still wants a hearing, even if she would rather be other places than a courtroom.

Before she entered, she held a large sign reading, "Free Marijuana," joined by her 71-year-old husband, Daniel, a native Californian from San Francisco, who has led "a life of Bohemian artistic awareness." Both identify themselves as born-again Christians.

Several passersby showed support with yells or hoots from cars on Morton Avenue.

"We're really not into carrying signs and making spectacles of ourselves," Eggink said.

Nearby, Terry Phelan, 57, hummed his tune:

"Free the weed, Free the weed,

It's been arrested, now it sits in jail

But that weed has never done no harm

It's the best crop anyone can farm"

Eggink faces a violation, akin to a ticket, if convicted.