BIG ups..Would Love to see all my neighboring states LEGAL.....NICE.
Here is a link to the bill, introduced by our new Governor, for the medical use of mj.
A few years ago, the legislature passes a similar measure, only to have our previous Governor veto it. This year, there are 4 pending bills for the medical use/legalization of pot.
A proposed bill by a Governor usually passes, especially if run by the same party (the democrats) and certainly if the legislature is trying to pass a similar bill. So... CT will soon be joining the ranks of sane states that see the value of marijuana!
BIG ups..Would Love to see all my neighboring states LEGAL.....NICE.
#1 Medical Marijuana Magazine http://releaf.co/ ...My Youtube Channel Name..Hghflyrjd1.....Facebook Page Highflyrjd RI MMP
It's nice seeing different states moving forward. A question about bills and laws, since I'm not knowledgeable in this area: Are such things voted on and passed at any time during the year, or does everything occur at the end of a year? More specifically, how soon could you see Connecticut joining the ranks or the other 14 or 15 states?
The Press in CT has not yet picked up on the existence of the bill, and so I cannot get a read on how controversial it will be this year. Controversy could definitely slow things down. On the other hand, the State has a lot of other hot topics to wrestle with (increased taxes, cut programs), so this may just quietly become law.
marijuana state by that time?
You seem to be fairly knowledgeable in this area; what would you say the likelihood is that it *would* be voted on as early as May? And your opinion on whether or not there will be legal cardholders before the end of the year?
Also, for a bill to be voted on, does it have to be fully complete and detailed (I.e plant limits, etc)? Or, are the rules established after the fact?
Thanks for information.
The bill will *definitely* at least be voted on by the end of the fiscal year (July 1)?
Before a vote is required, two key things have to happen. 1) The bill has to receive endorsement from the Judiciary Committee and 2) the legislative leadership has to put it on the House and Senate calendars for a vote. I believe it is highly likely that both will occur, since the legislature has expressed interest in medical mj, and the Governor will be pushing to have his bills voted on. The easiest way for this to fizzle would be for the senate to table it, never voting on the measure. So, we won't know if it will be voted on until it happens, or the the legislative session ends.
What would you say the likelihood is that it *would* be voted on as early as May?
It would be a guess, but I would give it a better than 50% chance of being voted on this year. If it gets voted on, I give it a 90% chance of becoming law.
For a bill to be voted on, does it have to be fully complete and detailed (I.e plant limits, etc)? Or, are the rules established after the fact?
The bill can be enacted as-is. Administrative rulings (the permit fees, for example) would be managed after the bill becomes law. One other advantage of this being a Governor's bill is that it indicates the Governor will direct the agencies to implement the measure if it becomes law. An unfriendly Governor could just stonewall the law by never having the agencies implement it.
BTW, the law as written provides for a 4 plant limit at a height of no more than 4'
Last edited by Nitegazer; 02-17-2011 at 12:08 PM.
Some questions and comments after reading through the bill:
"(1) "Debilitating medical condition" means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with objective neurological indication of intractable spasticity, epilepsy, cachexia or wasting syndrome;"
This seems to be a bit restrictive as the ailments mentioned are very specific - not even mentioning severe nausea, which other states include in their medical marijuana laws. I hope these are merely guidelines and not written into stone, as lots of people with different problems benefit should be able to benefit.
"(5) "Primary caregiver" means a person, other than the qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has agreed to undertake responsibility for managing the well-being of the qualifying patient with respect to the palliative use of marijuana, provided (A) in the case of a qualifying patient lacking legal capacity, such person shall be a parent, guardian or person having legal custody of such qualifying patient, and (B) the need for such person shall be evaluated by the qualifying patient's physician and such need shall be documented in the written certification;"
The "need for such a person" part is confusing; It sounds as if a person will mostly have to grow for themselves unless their disability is too severe, where a caregiver would then step in.
"(3) The combined amount of marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver for palliative use does not exceed four marijuana plants, each having a maximum height of four feet, and one ounce of usable marijuana; and"
Four plants is rather low, when compared to other states. However, I suppose that would be adequate for most persons, but the one ounce of usable marijuana limit is not reasonable at all. Even if a person staggered one plant every 2-3 weeks (8 week- 12 week strain), they would still run into one of two problems:
1) Exceeding the one ounce limit, with the harvest of a single plant.
2) Possibly being left without medicine for 1-2 weeks, while waiting to harvest the next one ounce.
"(c) A qualifying patient shall have not more than one primary caregiver at any time. No person who has been convicted of possession of marijuana or for dealing drugs shall serve as a primary caregiver for a qualifying patient. A primary caregiver may not be responsible for the care of more than one qualifying patient at any time..."
I wonder what their intentions are by only allowing a caregiver to only care for one single patient; I don't remember hearing any other state with this restriction. All in all, I'm glad another state is moving towards the future (instead of fighting it), but I'm a bit annoyed at some of the things mentioned in the bill.
Last edited by fourtwentychat; 02-19-2011 at 07:51 AM.
After reading through it I was really disappointed. I've had 2 major surgeries and will feel the effects for the rest of my life, yet I probably wouldn't qualify for mmj as the law is written now. It is a sad sad world when I can go see a "pain management" doctor and get oxy's, dilaudid, and other fucked up drugs for life (no thank you), but I can't grow a simple plant. ugh. Relying on others sucks!
At least this would be a step in the right direction I suppose.
The narrow range of those who would qualify stems out of the need to win broad legislative support. One of the challenges of getting MedMJ in CT is the perception that programs are being taken advantage of, that most are using MedMJ as a way to circumvent the law and party. By sticking with terminal illnesses, it will be hard for opponents to hold the high road.
The law could be amended at any time, a process that receives much less scrutiny than the introduction of a new law. It will probably take a number of years, but the number of conditions will probably grow.
I think ‘need’ in this context is broad. The Dept. of Public Health will have to interpret it, but I imagine anyone who is not able to maintain a secure indoor garden because of lack of skill or circumstance will be able to pair with a caregiver.
Connecticut once again flexes its Puritanical muscles. Some other states are restrictive-- Maine allows for only 1.25 oz, Nevada and Alaska only allow 1oz. I can only hope the amend this to be more reasonable.
I actually think limiting the number of patients each caregiver can have is a good thing—though allowing only one is overboard. I am concerned with how large organizations are crowding out smaller growers in Colorado and California. By maintaining a 1:1 relationship between caregivers and patients, MedMJ will not become corporate.
So, yeah, it’s an overly restrictive law. But it cracks the door open—and can, no will be amended. Also note that another bill working its way through the legislature reduces possession <1oz. of marijuana to an infraction (rather than a misdemeanor).
Still, you make it sound like the laws will be easily amenable, so any progression is a good thing.