Montana: Medical Marijuana Approved

The Billings Gazette ^ | November 3, 2004 | Allison Farrell

[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.

[tacticalogic]

The other night he claimed we were disrupting the forum & punched abuse.

He knows where the button is. I'm ready any time he wants to take it up with the AM.

[TKDietz]

Is it impossible to be libertarian and conservative at the same time? There are plenty of conservative Republicans with libertarian leanings. William F. Buckley is a "conservative" as is Robert Bork as is Pat Buchanan as is Bill Kristol as is George Bush, yet none of them share totally identical ideological perspectives. Buckley ran for mayor of NYC once for the "Conservative" party. He helped start the National Review, a decidedly conservative publication, and edited that magazine until he retired just this year. He has always referred to himself as conservative and has fought hard throughout his life against liberals. He has always been referred to as being conservative in the media and in books and by politicians and the general populace who know who he is. If you wish to exclude him from the ranks of conservatives in your deluded little mind, go right ahead. I'm not going to waste another second arguing with you about it.

[TKDietz]

I don't know about the other two organizations you mentioned, but NORML has been around since 1970, long before the people you mentioned started pumping money into marijuana legalization efforts. I may be mistaken, but I don't think Soros ever funded NORML.

As for the money being only a tiny fraction of their fortunes, that's all it is. Soros is a multi-billionaire. He gives hundreds of millions a year worldwide and only a tiny fraction of that is for drug law reform. The combined total budgets of the three groups you mention is probably somewhat less than ten million a year, compared to billions the government and anti-drug groups spend. Most of these marijuana initiatives you've seen pass have passed with only a few hundred thousand dollars spent on the part of those seeking to pass the initiatives. A lot of hoopla is made about "exorbitant" amounts being spent on drug law reform measures but these amounts pale in comparison to what's being spent on the other side. The anti's have most of the money and get most of the free publicity.

[robertpaulsen]

Yeah, but it's his millions vs thousands spent by local anti-drug groups on these statewide issues.

And if Ashcroft even sneezes in an adjacent state during the campaign, the pro-druggies are crying about federal involvement in local issues.

So don't give me this crap about big-time federal money.

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen wrote:

You used the word "gave" in your post #119.

Inspector paulsen discovers another nit to pick. Sherlock Holmes is no doubt jealous.

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?"

"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.

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?

There it is, another example of paulsens dementia. -- What a goofy statement.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yep. Like pushing that big snowball down Slippery Hill. That's basically what you're suggesting.

[robertpaulsen]

"Founding Fathers gave the federal government the power to protect our RKBA."

Oh please, federal government. Please protect my RKBA.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

[tpaine]

Whatta juvenile twit.

[Brian328i]

Bah, Montana doesn't get that cold :P

It has been so mild the last few years though =/