Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Montana: Medical Marijuana Approved
The Billings Gazette ^ | November 3, 2004 | Allison Farrell

Posted on 11/03/2004 1:51:01 PM PST by Wolfie

Medical Marijuana Approved

Helena -- Montanans suffering from certain medical conditions may be able to legally smoke marijuana to ease their symptoms come January 1. The Medical Marijuana Act passed by a 63 to 37 percent margin Tuesday with 375 of 881 precincts reporting. The new act will protect patients, their doctors and their caregivers from state and local arrest and prosecution for the medical use of marijuana.

Teresa Michalski of Helena couldn't be happier. Michalski once lived in fear that her late son, Travis, would spend the last few months of his short life in jail for using marijuana during the last stages of Hodgkin's disease.

"I knew the people in Montana were compassionate and I could count on them," said Michalski, a fifth-generation Montanan.

U.S. Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns, however, warned Montanans that federal law trumps state law, and said during a recent visit to Montana that no state initiative permitting the medical use of marijuana can circumvent the federal law prohibiting the possession and use of the drug.

"There's no safe harbor," Burns said.

But Paul Befumo, treasurer of the Marijuana Policy Project of Montana, said he's "elated" that the measure passed.

"People don't have to worry about being criminalized any more," he said.

Proponents say smoking marijuana relieves nausea, increases appetite, reduces muscle spasms, relieves chronic pain and reduces pressure in the eyes. It can be used to treat the symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma, among other diseases, they say.

Medical marijuana has been approved by voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. In Hawaii, a law was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor in 2000. In Vermont, a law was passed by the Legislature and allowed to become law without the governor's signature in May 2004, the Marijuana Policy Project reports.

The Montana measure's campaign was financially backed by the national Marijuana Policy Project out of Washington, D.C.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: drugwar; giveitupwolfie; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: tacticalogic
"Wheather they agreed with it or not is irrelevant."

It's totally relevant.

As you know, Hamilton, Washington, and the United States Congress told Jefferson he was blowing smoke up their collective a$$ and set up the First Bank of the United States.

Two years after the Constitution was ratified.

By the people who wrote and ratified it (way before FDR).

Ever occur to you that Jefferson was wrong?

121 posted on 11/04/2004 9:43:42 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"There you go again with your bizarre theory ..."

Bizarre theory? From you, the master of the bizarre? Case in point.

Our RKBA is to protect us from a government turned tyrannical. Surely you agree.

Yet you believe that the Founding Fathers gave this government the power to defend us against infringements of our RKBA's? Right. And they also gave the fox the power to defend the hen house.

BWAHAHAHAHA! You are a stich. Me, bizarre. Indeed.

"Got anyone banned lately?"

Patience.

122 posted on 11/04/2004 9:51:34 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Besides, Soros is not the only person funding marijuana legalization initiatives

But he is the main one. Other progressives supporting the pro-drug movement with millions are Sperling and Lewis.

123 posted on 11/04/2004 9:52:00 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
"He certainly thinks of himself as conservative"

What??

That book I referenced was non-fiction. He calls himself a Libertarian. Right on the friggin' cover!

Geez, I feel like Alice in Wonderland ... in "1984".

124 posted on 11/04/2004 9:55:53 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
As you know, Hamilton, Washington, and the United States Congress told Jefferson he was blowing smoke up their collective a$$ and set up the First Bank of the United States.

Two years after the Constitution was ratified.

By the people who wrote and ratified it (way before FDR).

Ever occur to you that Jefferson was wrong?

Ever occur to you that the disagreement was not over regulating commerce?

125 posted on 11/04/2004 9:57:28 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Ever occur to you that the disagreement was not over regulating commerce?"

I suppose you placed his commerce clause reference in bold because, what, it looked pretty?

126 posted on 11/04/2004 10:08:11 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
U.S. Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns, however, warned Montanans that federal law trumps state law, and said during a recent visit to Montana that no state initiative permitting the medical use of marijuana can circumvent the federal law prohibiting the possession and use of the drug.

The governor of Montana needs to just warn this jerk that agents arresting legal state users will be met with anything up to and including deadly force for illegal detention.

127 posted on 11/04/2004 10:10:11 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Truth, Justice and the Texan Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Again though, these are just three people out of millions and millions out there from various backgrounds with various core beliefs who happen to agree that marijuana should be legal. Just because we agree on that one point does not mean we all agree on everything else. These guys are billionaires and for whatever reason they are giving a tiny fraction of their fortunes to marijuana law reform groups. They are not the only people who support the reform of our marijuana laws. They're just the filthy rich ones. I've given a lot of money over the course of my life but probably less than $50.00 to marijuana reform groups. Most of us don't have piles of money to give and when we do give we're going to give to our church or other worthy charities in our community. Although I think reforming our marijuana laws is a worthy cause it has to take a low priority when I'm deciding what to do with my money. If I was a gozillionaire like these other guys I would probably give several hundred thousand or a million or two a year to marijuana legalization initiatives like each one of them do, but as is the case for those guys the money I gave for marijuana initiatives would only be a small fraction of my total charitable contributions.
128 posted on 11/04/2004 10:12:31 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

They may have disagreed over wheather establishing a national bank did indeed constitute regulating the internal commerce of a state or not. There is no evidence there was any disagreement with his assesement of the limits of federal authority under the Commerce Clause, just wheather or not establishing a national bank exceeded those limits.


129 posted on 11/04/2004 10:35:18 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
I believe the last Governor to try something like that was George Wallace in 1963. Didn't work out too well, if memory serves.

Although I would respect a Governor who stands up for his state, I would hope the issue would be more noble than the right to smoke dope.

130 posted on 11/04/2004 10:46:52 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Good for Montana. It's about time someone recognized the need for this.


131 posted on 11/04/2004 10:48:25 AM PST by Capitalism2003 (America is too great for small dreams. - Ronald Reagan, speech to Congress. January 1, 1984.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The national bank was set up under the power given to Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

You're muddying things up with your Commerce Clause claptrap. Cool it.

132 posted on 11/04/2004 10:51:03 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/mustomj1.html
133 posted on 11/04/2004 10:58:23 AM PST by freepatriot32 (http://chonlalonde.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
"and for whatever reason they are giving a tiny fraction of their fortunes to marijuana law reform groups."

Ooh. Just a wee wittle tiny fwaction?

That "tiny fraction" represents millions of dollars without which these organizations would either fold or fade into insignificance.

Soros and his billionaire buddies fund NORML, MPP (DPA), and DRCnet, the three biggies for marijuana reform.

Without them, the legalization movement would consist of one website at marijuanaiscool.com.

134 posted on 11/04/2004 11:13:31 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The national bank was set up under the power given to Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Then it wasn't an exercise in regulating commerce, and establishing the bank was in no way a refutation of Jefferson's arguments with regards to the Commerce Clause.

You're muddying things up with your Commerce Clause claptrap. Cool it.

What, you want to leave the Commerce Clause and the Constitutional issues out of it, and make it "just about the pot"?

135 posted on 11/04/2004 11:16:10 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Link does NOT support your claims. Besides, I said NO Soros funded links.


136 posted on 11/04/2004 11:24:53 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
We the people, citizens of the USA, have no protection from the unconstitutional infringements of a rogue State like CA?

They left it to each state to protect that right, along with free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, a right to an attorney, and any other right the citizens of a particular state wished to protect.

There you go again with your bizarre theory that our inalienable rights can be infringed upon by States of the Union, who are pledged to uphold the Law of the Land.

Bizarre theory?
Case in point. Our RKBA is to protect us from a government turned tyrannical. Surely you agree.

Indeed I do. -- We are so protected from any level of government in the USA, by our US Constitution.

Yet you believe that the Founding Fathers gave this government the power to defend us against infringements of our RKBA's? Right.

"Gave"? -- No. They wrote a document with checks & balances on such infringements of power made by any level of our various governments, local, state or fed.

And they also gave the fox the power to defend the hen house. BWAHAHAHAHA! You are a stich. Me, bizarre. Indeed.

Your loony reaction to my question makes my point.

Got anyone banned lately?

Patience.

Paulsen, one thing I've learned here is patience, -- by seeing trolls like you come and go on FR for years. --- Eventually you'll crack under the strain of pretending to be a conservative.. I can wait.

137 posted on 11/04/2004 11:50:25 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
That person isn't Conservative enough for me.

Well that's an awfully dumb way to look at it. Are people who want to see alcohol remain legal liberals? If not, what the heck is the difference?

138 posted on 11/04/2004 11:56:06 AM PST by jmc813 (J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

'Cool it' usually means he's about to start his accusations that we're not arguing 'fair'. The other night he claimed we were disrupting the forum & punched abuse.

Weird fella.


139 posted on 11/04/2004 11:57:22 AM PST by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You used the word "gave" in your post #119. You asked me, "Paulsen, you don't really believe that the Founding Fathers gave our government the power to defend us against infringements of our RKBA's?"

Now you're backtracking. Gave? Oh no, robertpaulsen.

There it is. For all to see. You believe the Founding Fathers gave the federal government the power to protect our RKBA. Why would they do that? Why would they give that power to the entity that may become tyrannical?

What a goofy statement.

140 posted on 11/04/2004 12:00:56 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson