Medical Marijuana laws working well report says

Eugene Register Guard ^ | 11-30-2002 | AP

[Rocksalt]

November 30, 2002

Medical marijuana laws working well, report says By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Law enforcement officials in four of the states that allow medical use of marijuana say the laws have had minimal impact on crimefighting, although they at times complicate prosecution of drug cases, a congressional report said Friday.

The report by the General Accounting Office said that only a small fraction of the people in Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska used marijuana for medical purposes. The results in California, the fourth state studied, were limited to only four counties and no statewide data were available.

Some law enforcement officials said that while crimefighting was not harmed, the laws allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana at times has complicated efforts to seize illegal marijuana or to prosecute some cases, according to the GAO report.

In some cases, law enforcement officials said the marijuana laws resulted in ``a general softening'' in attitudes among the public toward marijuana, the report said, and some were concerned about conflicts that arise with federal law enforcement, which still bans the drug.

The GAO examined only four of the eight states that have allowed medical uses for marijuana. The other states are Nevada, Colorado, Washington and Maine.

The GAO found that a total of about 2,450 people in Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska use marijuana for medical purposes - accounting for no more than .05 percent of the population in any of the states.

The report provided no statewide data for California. That state's law does not require medicinal marijuana users to register, although about 4,500 people have done so voluntarily in four of the state's 58 counties, according to the GAO.

In Northern California, Humboldt County officials said marijuana growers are allowed to grow hundreds of plants while claiming to be a medical caregiver to multiple patients, and no documentation is required.

Some local law enforcement officials in California questioned how effectively they could prosecute criminal marijuana cases since the state has no limit on the amount of marijuana that can be held by a patient or a caregiver.

While the other three states have established limits, some law enforcement officials said they too were less likely to pursue cases that could be shielded by the provisions.

The Bush administration disagreed with some of the report's findings.

The state marijuana laws have resulted in a ``worsening of relations between federal, state and local law enforcement,'' Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert Diegelman wrote the review of the report.

The laws create ``legal loopholes for drug dealers and marijuana cultivators to avoid arrest and prosecution,'' he said.

Data from the three states that require registries - Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska - showed that over 70 percent of medicinal marijuana users from each state were at least 40 years old.

In Hawaii and Oregon, where information on gender was kept, about 70 percent of users in each state were male, according to the report.

The GAO conducted its study from September 2001 to June 2002.

[zx2dragon]

The state marijuana laws have resulted in a ``worsening of relations between federal, state and local law enforcement,'' Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert Diegelman wrote the review of the report.

Yup, the feds hate it when the states go out and do something on their own and the feds know they can't do anything about it.

The only problem with the law is the same with a lot of new laws. No set definitions. Ever since the Clinton era, we're too busy arguing over what IS is in the court room. Make the growers become registered and certified with the local county. There, now all the drug warriors will know who they can and cannot touch.

[Rocksalt]

"The state marijuana laws have resulted in a ``worsening of relations between federal, state and local law enforcement,'' Acting Assistant Attorney General Robert Diegelman wrote the review of the report."

What you are saying is true,and there has been alot of cases of the feds overriding state laws and raiding providers.Massive federal raids took place in California resulting in patients having a hard time getting their medicine.Growers are supposed to be certified and registered,at least in my state.Do you think if this issue of federal repression of states rights to sanction medical use ever goes before the supreme court,and the court rules favoribly for some reason it could affect the whole issue of state laws vs. federal laws,not only on this issue,but every issue? I doubt it would happen,but it would be a real breakthrough for freedoms.

[zx2dragon]

The SCOTUS ruling are supposed to really on reflect on the one case brought before it. However, it would give something for the lower courts to base future rulings on, if they agree with the SCOTUS.

Unless something is done at the federal legislative level, we'll end up with a hodge podge of states that either allow or disallow use. This will lead to other courts, which will keep forcing the issue to the fed level. All in all, we're looking at probably a good 20 years before anything is done.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Sparta]

Have the Feds ever heard of the 10th Amemendment?

[Sparta]

Every state should be allowed to set their own drug laws.

[vin-one]

thanks for the ping, by the way,
in the to list just put in Wod_list. and it will populate the Wod list.
if you can get to that list it contains a bunch of stuff on the WOD.

Jedi Girl lives........

[vin-one]

thanks for the ping, by the way,
in the to list just put in Wod_list. and it will populate the Wod list.
if you can get to that list it contains a bunch of stuff on the WOD.

Jedi Girl lives........

[zx2dragon]

Problem is that it will cross state lines eventually and then the feds step in. Federal regulations are also the only way for there to be enough consistancy in the laws and the drugs. Image a medical marijuana user moving from one state where they grow some really go weed to one where it's not so good or can't get it at all. I'm not advocating more fed involvement with our lives, but sometimes you can't escape it.

Now what will happen is how the states handle it. IE Alcohol. In NC there are ABC stores that sell liquor and the grocery stores sell the beer. The beer cannot be any stronger than 6%. There are three different licenses depending on what you sell (beer, wine, port wine) and each one has fees attached. However, if you take a trip to somewhere like NJ, you have to find liquor stores to buy any alcohol at all and I believe they have a set amount of licenses that they allow state-wide, creating a great way for local politicians to gain some really good funding via everyone campaigning for what's leftover.

So basically the feds will handle the trading and quality of pot and also lay down general law guidelines and then the states will add their own relatives, or rather beauracracies to further regulate it and tax it even further (it'll be for the schools!).

[robertpaulsen]

"Data from Hawaii and Oregon also showed that about 75 percent -- and more than 80 percent respectively -- of the physicians' recommendations were for severe pain and conditions associated with muscle spasms,..."
UPI -- 11/30/02

Well, so much for nausea and glaucoma.

[MrLeRoy]

Problem is that it will cross state lines eventually and then the feds step in.

Why is that a "problem"? IntERstate commerce is the fed's area of authority.

Federal regulations are also the only way for there to be enough consistancy in the laws and the drugs. Image a medical marijuana user moving from one state where they grow some really go weed to one where it's not so good or can't get it at all.

Beats the status quo, in which the feds interfere with sick peoples' medicine in all 50 states.

I'm not advocating more fed involvement with our lives

Good, because they only make things worse.

[MrLeRoy]

Well, so much for nausea and glaucoma.

They're in that other 20-25 percent. Did you have a point?

[Hacksaw]

Jedi Girl lives........

Don't worry, another 17 year old addict will appear soon on this forum to endorse your views.

[robertpaulsen]

That is the point.

[MrLeRoy]

And a pointless point it is, too ....

[vin-one]

Don't worry, another 17 year old addict will appear soon on this forum to endorse your views.

I guess I would rather have a 17 year old,
than some politcal flunky like Dane, or CAguy.trampling on all my rights.
What gives the Fed Gov. the right to tell me what I can and can't put into my body
anyone remember what a great success prohibition was,
afterall it gave us Al capone, the Kennedys, and the Mafia.

[robertpaulsen]

Pointless? Hardly.

All I ever hear on this board is how marijuana is so great for glaucoma -- almost like there is no other treatment.

And nausea! I'm getting nauseous myself thinking about how many times marijuana was touted as the only cure for nausea in AIDS patients and cancer patients on chemo.

Glaucoma, nausea, glaucoma, nausea, blah, blah, blah.

So a report comes out, and lo and behold, marijuana is being used to treat pain. Whoop dee do.

[Hacksaw]

What you put into your body does not just affect you.

[MrLeRoy]

All I ever hear on this board is how marijuana is so great for glaucoma -- almost like there is no other treatment.

If you haven't heard about its use for pain, you haven't been paying attention---that has been noted in a number of threads here (threads in which I seem to recall you posting, in fact).

And nausea! I'm getting nauseous myself thinking about how many times marijuana was touted as the only cure for nausea in AIDS patients and cancer patients on chemo.

Provide evidence that marijuana has been cited by any FReeper as the "only" cure for ANYTHING.