Thousands Will Become Illegal Under New Montana Bill.

[greenbuddha]

New Medical Marijuana Amendments EmergePosted by CN Staff on April 06, 2011 at 06:04:19 PT

By Charles S. Johnson, Gazette State Bureau

Source: Billings Gazette

 

Helena, MT -- A bipartisan group in the House has proposed some major changes that seek to restore Montana's medical marijuana law to what people thought they were voting on in 2004.

 

Rep. Cary Smith, R-Billings, said the amendments will be offered Wednesday at a 3 p.m. hearing before the House Human Services Committee on Senate Bill 423, by Sen. Jeff Essmann, R-Billings.

 

SB423 appears to be the lone surviving bill to repeal the current law and put into place a strict regulatory and licensing system.

 

HB161, by House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, would repeal the law altogether as of July 1. Milburn's bill has passed both chambers and is headed to Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who has said he wants the law fixed, not repealed.

 

Besides Smith, others who worked on the amendments Tuesday afternoon were House Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings; and Reps. Tom Berry, R-Roundup; Gary MacLaren, R-Victor; and Diane Sands, D-Missoula. Most have been working on medical marijuana bills throughout the session, while Sands was chairwoman and MacLaren vice chairman of an interim committee that studied the issue last year.

 

They took parts of various bills that they agreed on and are combining them for what amounts to a rewrite of SB423.

 

"We looked at what we liked in other bills," Smith said.

 

Some earlier sets of amendments drafted for SB423 may not be offered at the meeting in favor of the bipartisan group's proposals. Earlier, Smith and Rep. Pat Noonan, D-Ramsay, each had a set of amendments prepared for the bill.

 

Here are some the highlights of the bipartisan proposal, according to Smith:

 

-- The current medical marijuana law would be repealed mid-year, as Essmann's bill does.

 

-- It would be up to a physician to determine what debilitating conditions lead to a recommendation that a patient use medical marijuana. The physician would have to certify that the patient's condition is debilitating, why it is and describe the other medications, procedures and other medical options that had been tried previously to treat the patient but weren't effective.

 

-- The state Department of Public Health and Human Services would register all medical marijuana patients and issue them cards. Those who provide patients with marijuana also would have to register with the department. No other state agency would be involved. Local law enforcement agencies would be notified about which people in their cities or counties are legally using and growing medical marijuana.

 

-- Montana no longer would have any licensed medical marijuana growing operations or storefront dispensaries for the product.

 

-- Instead, one provider could grow medical marijuana for one authorized patient, but couldn't profit it from it. A provider could grow marijuana for a patient, but that patient couldn't grow for a provider. Someone could grow marijuana for up to three people, but only if they are related by blood or marriage, again without profiting from it.

 

-- Like other proposals, these amendments would forbid telemedicine as a means for physicians to see patients regarding medical marijuana.

 

-- If the amendments are approved and the bill passed, HB175 would be nullified. This bill, by Rep. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, calls for a voters to decide by a referendum in November 2012 whether to repeal whatever medical marijuana law is on the books at the time or to keep it.

 

Smith said the biggest problem with Essmann's SB423 is that it called for state-licensed medical marijuana growers. That would have required state regulation.

 

"We wanted to take it back to what Montanans thought they voted for," he said.

 

He cited language from the 2004 voter information pamphlet in which backers of the initiative said, "Perhaps most importantly, I-148 would allow patients to grow their own personal supply of marijuana so that they will no longer have to buy marijuana from the criminal market."

 

"It doesn't talk about having businesses and grow operations," Smith said.

 

Smith has been a strong advocate of repeal but said these amendments would lead to a bill that amounts to "the next best thing."

 

Essmann had said his goal under SB423 was to see medical marijuana cardholders drop to fewer than 2,000 from the current 28,500.

 

Smith said he wasn't sure how many fewer cardholders there would be if the bill with these amendments passed.

 

"It's going to be considerably less," he said. "We know it's not going to be the 28,000, 29,000 we have now."

 

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)

Author: Charles S. Johnson, Gazette State Bureau

Published: April 5, 2011

Copyright: 2011 The Billings Gazette

Contact: speakup@billingsgazette.com

Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

URL: http://drugsense.org/url/eVkuQn1K

 

CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives

http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml

<BR clear=all>

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

 

[MORE COWBELL]

They took parts of various bills that they agreed on and are combining them for what amounts to a rewrite of SB423.

 

"We looked at what we liked in other bills," Smith said.

 

New Medical Marijuana Amendments Emerg

 

 

 

really? and what about what your patients/people voted on-what they like????????????????????

 

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE your reality THAT HAS TO BE LEGISLATED ? why is it your reality that has to be the status quo?

why when the staus quo votes something in you do not like-you have to change the status quo? why cant you leave us alone?

what damage are we doing to you except shifting reality? i i get it...

 

you will kill our reality jail our reality imprison our reality and attempt to destroy our reality thru Fear, legislation and imprisonment-your really setting the example Christ charged you neocons with... to be good stewards and look out for eachother-NOT RULE THE WORLD that is... until the king returns

 

what have you done???????????????????

 

you have killed millions of brown people across the planet in the name of progress-seeking then stealing natural resources like oil gold and diamonds in the name of being good stewards?

 

what is all of this messy world we have wrought...the human race?

 

we are supposed to be in a personal relationship with each other and the planet-we are strangers now to eachother-there is fear... there is suffering at YOUR HANDS NEOCON Politician's and LEGISLATORS around the world.

 

leave us alone please we will manage with out you......................................."we are not the droids you are looking for"

[MORE COWBELL]

under your proposal only 7% of current cardholder/patients would get to keep their cards/MMMJ status!

[LansingAreaCaregiver]

New Medical Marijuana Amendments EmergePosted by CN Staff on April 06, 2011 at 06:04:19 PT

By Charles S. Johnson, Gazette State Bureau

Source: Billings Gazette

 

Helena, MT -- A bipartisan group in the House has proposed some major changes that seek to restore Montana's medical marijuana law to what people thought they were voting on in 2004.

 

Rep. Cary Smith, R-Billings, said the amendments will be offered Wednesday at a 3 p.m. hearing before the House Human Services Committee on Senate Bill 423, by Sen. Jeff Essmann, R-Billings.

 

SB423 appears to be the lone surviving bill to repeal the current law and put into place a strict regulatory and licensing system.

 

HB161, by House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, would repeal the law altogether as of July 1. Milburn's bill has passed both chambers and is headed to Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who has said he wants the law fixed, not repealed.

 

Besides Smith, others who worked on the amendments Tuesday afternoon were House Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings; and Reps. Tom Berry, R-Roundup; Gary MacLaren, R-Victor; and Diane Sands, D-Missoula. Most have been working on medical marijuana bills throughout the session, while Sands was chairwoman and MacLaren vice chairman of an interim committee that studied the issue last year.

 

They took parts of various bills that they agreed on and are combining them for what amounts to a rewrite of SB423.

 

"We looked at what we liked in other bills," Smith said.

 

Some earlier sets of amendments drafted for SB423 may not be offered at the meeting in favor of the bipartisan group's proposals. Earlier, Smith and Rep. Pat Noonan, D-Ramsay, each had a set of amendments prepared for the bill.

 

Here are some the highlights of the bipartisan proposal, according to Smith:

 

-- The current medical marijuana law would be repealed mid-year, as Essmann's bill does.

 

-- It would be up to a physician to determine what debilitating conditions lead to a recommendation that a patient use medical marijuana. The physician would have to certify that the patient's condition is debilitating, why it is and describe the other medications, procedures and other medical options that had been tried previously to treat the patient but weren't effective.

 

-- The state Department of Public Health and Human Services would register all medical marijuana patients and issue them cards. Those who provide patients with marijuana also would have to register with the department. No other state agency would be involved. Local law enforcement agencies would be notified about which people in their cities or counties are legally using and growing medical marijuana.

 

-- Montana no longer would have any licensed medical marijuana growing operations or storefront dispensaries for the product.

 

-- Instead, one provider could grow medical marijuana for one authorized patient, but couldn't profit it from it. A provider could grow marijuana for a patient, but that patient couldn't grow for a provider. Someone could grow marijuana for up to three people, but only if they are related by blood or marriage, again without profiting from it.

 

-- Like other proposals, these amendments would forbid telemedicine as a means for physicians to see patients regarding medical marijuana.

 

-- If the amendments are approved and the bill passed, HB175 would be nullified. This bill, by Rep. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, calls for a voters to decide by a referendum in November 2012 whether to repeal whatever medical marijuana law is on the books at the time or to keep it.

 

Smith said the biggest problem with Essmann's SB423 is that it called for state-licensed medical marijuana growers. That would have required state regulation.

 

"We wanted to take it back to what Montanans thought they voted for," he said.

 

He cited language from the 2004 voter information pamphlet in which backers of the initiative said, "Perhaps most importantly, I-148 would allow patients to grow their own personal supply of marijuana so that they will no longer have to buy marijuana from the criminal market."

 

"It doesn't talk about having businesses and grow operations," Smith said.

 

Smith has been a strong advocate of repeal but said these amendments would lead to a bill that amounts to "the next best thing."

 

Essmann had said his goal under SB423 was to see medical marijuana cardholders drop to fewer than 2,000 from the current 28,500.

 

Smith said he wasn't sure how many fewer cardholders there would be if the bill with these amendments passed.

 

"It's going to be considerably less," he said. "We know it's not going to be the 28,000, 29,000 we have now."

 

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)

Author: Charles S. Johnson, Gazette State Bureau

Published: April 5, 2011

Copyright: 2011 The Billings Gazette

Contact: speakup@billingsgazette.com

Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

URL: http://drugsense.org/url/eVkuQn1K

 

CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives

http://cannabisnews....t/medical.shtml

<BR clear=all>

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

 

 

SOOOOO much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin. Right from the first line of the article, where they say voters are too stupid to know what they voted for. This argument riles me more than most others, because it is politicians who make the claim. So what you're saying is that people aren't smart enough to know what they're voting for when it comes to this one topic you disagree with them on? After all, these are the same voters that were "smart enough" to elect your sorry behinds.

 

"It would be up to a physician to determine what debilitating conditions lead to a recommendation that a patient use medical marijuana. The physician would have to certify that the patient's condition is debilitating, why it is and describe the other medications, procedures and other medical options that had been tried previously to treat the patient but weren't effective."

 

Why does MM have to be a medication of last resort? why does someone have to prove that other medications were ineffective? So you HAVE to take the liver and Kidney destroying drugs before you can get the safe, natural alternative? Makes PERFECT sense to me...

 

"No other state agency would be involved. Local law enforcement agencies would be notified about which people in their cities or counties are legally using and growing medical marijuana. "

 

Despite being a glaring contradiction, they want to provide a list of all MM patients and caregivers to local law enforcement? Yeah, I'm sure that wouldn't cause any problems.

 

And to hear these republicans saying that profit can't be involved is galling. The same politicians who want to hand over power,, control and money to private profit making companies, the same ones who argue that government is the problem not the solution, suddenly want to create a medical distribution system BARRING private businesses from engaging?! :jipo:

 

GRRRR... People voted. They knew what they were voting for. You just don't like it! Hypocrites and idiots.

[Mememe]

He cited language from the 2004 voter information pamphlet in which backers of the initiative said, "Perhaps most importantly, I-148 would allow patients to grow their own personal supply of marijuana so that they will no longer have to buy marijuana from the criminal market."

 

"It doesn't talk about having businesses and grow operations," Smith said.

 

Ummm, the statement just before says that there will be grow operations. Smith doesn't seem to be very educated or even paying attention.

[MORE COWBELL]

SOOOOO much wrong with this it is hard to know where to begin. Right from the first line of the article, where they say voters are too stupid to know what they voted for. This argument riles me more than most others, because it is politicians who make the claim. So what you're saying is that people aren't smart enough to know what they're voting for when it comes to this one topic you disagree with them on? After all, these are the same voters that were "smart enough" to elect your sorry behinds.

 

its war on US patients! dont be fooled

[LansingAreaCaregiver]

"They have instead chose to push an economic agenda, that voters didn't vote for and actually object to."

 

Bologna Joe! The people of this state are intelligent enough to know what they vote for! Remember the recent research poll that found that the MMMP still had a 60% approval rating? You're comment is no better than the politicians in the article. On WHAT basis do you stake your claim that commercial distribution centers (whether they be in the form of dispensaries, farmer's markets, compassion club, or whatever) was not what the people of MI voted for?! Yes, there has been pushback in some communities, but for every community that encounters resistance, there is another community that welcomes the new commercial sector!

 

I have to be honest, Joe. I love this website, these forums, and the information that the MMMA provides, but I'm getting pretty annoyed with the constant bashing of commercial enterprise. On the one hand you claim that you're only opposed to commercial enterprise that seeks to limit or eliminate the patient/caregiver system, then repeatedly post junk like this stating that we can't let the floodgates of commercialization open or we'll all be drowned.

 

I am one of the 63% voters who voted for this bill. I, along with 60% of voters continue to support the act as it is written (including allowing transfers between patients, in whatever form that takes.) I support the legitimization and safe/consistent distribution system afforded by private enterprise in medical marijuana. Yet I continue to hear tha I didn't realize what I was voting for.

 

I knew exactly what I was voting for.

[Guest 1TokeOverLine]

Sorry to both sides, but I agree with the part of the initiative that says patients can grow for blood members, other patients, but not for any profit. Buy meds, grow them, pay for the bills and time, gas to deliver, etc - but no chance on making a living off patient's grief and suffering.

 

I realize a lot of card holders have conditions that would be eliminated, but doctors should be the ones to diagnose and treat, not a law written by politicians that makes a list of conditions.

 

That said, no law should have to be written to allow people use of alternative medications that ease any kind of suffering from headaches and stomach aches to shingles. What gives our lawmakers the right to dictate what we can use to make our lives easier. A few tokes after work relaxes, a few pills have side effects worse than the condition.

 

But bottom line is most voters say OK to severely disabled people with terminal or debilitating pain, not something that common home remedies can handle. This is the results of voters without medical degrees asked to make a medical decision law. Recipe for trouble and misunderstanding when the racketeers flood in for part of the pie.

 

I fully understand that some patients need to acquire meds because they can't grow or know someone who can, but dispensaries aren't the solution, a great support network is. But what does an old sick man know - blame it on senility.

 

1T