Connecticut May Soon Join the Club

Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
Here is a link to the bill, introduced by our new Governor, for the medical use of mj.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB01015&which_year=2011

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!
 
F

fourtwentychat

Well-Known Member
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?
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
fourtwentychat said:
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?
Click to expand...
Legislation can be approved at any time between now and the end of the fiscal year (July 1), though the process (hearings etc.) will take at least until May before the bill is voted on. The bill indicates a date of Oct. 2011 for implementation, though that may be a bit optimistic. It may take a year or so before the first permits are available.

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.
 
F

fourtwentychat

Well-Known Member
Nitegazer said:
Legislation can be approved at any time between now and the end of the fiscal year (July 1), though the process (hearings etc.) will take at least until May before the bill is voted on. The bill indicates a date of Oct. 2011 for implementation, though that may be a bit optimistic. It may take a year or so before the first permits are available.

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.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that the bill will *definitely* at least be voted on by the end of the fiscal year (July 1)? That is, it will be known for sure whether or not CT will be the next medical 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.
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
fourtwentychat said:
So, you are saying that the bill will *definitely* at least be voted on by the end of the fiscal year (July 1)? That is, it will be known for sure whether or not CT will be the next medical 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.
Click to expand...
Good questions. I'll take them one at a time:

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.

Peace.

BTW, the law as written provides for a 4 plant limit at a height of no more than 4'
 
F

fourtwentychat

Well-Known Member
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.
 
H

hobbyhorse

Member
Agreed.

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.
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
fourtwentychat said:
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;"
Click to expand...
fourtwentychat said:


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.
Click to expand...


 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.

fourtwentychat said:
"(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.
Click to expand...

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.

fourtwentychat said:
"(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.
Click to expand...


 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.


fourtwentychat said:
"(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
Click to expand...
fourtwentychat said:
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.
Click to expand...


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).
 
F

fourtwentychat

Well-Known Member
Nitegazer said:


I actually think limiting the number of patients each caregiver can have is a good thing&#8212;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.
Click to expand...


I don't really have a factual basis for this argument, but when having read this, I theorized that the 1:1 caregiver-patient relationship rule was somehow designed to have the opposite effect - making dispensaries the more viable option (assumedly for tax purposes) . I'm not sure if clones/vegging plants are included in the 4 plant per patient limit, but I can't imagine a caregiver being able to house more than 1-2 strains given such strict requirements. Also, with caregivers only able to provide one ounce to their patients at a time, I can definitely see the patients' needs being better met at dispensaries, which they will most likely *need* to visit, when waiting for their next harvested single ounce.

Still, you make it sound like the laws will be easily amenable, so any progression is a good thing.
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
fourtwentychat said:
I don't really have a factual basis for this argument, but when having read this, I theorized that the 1:1 caregiver-patient relationship rule was somehow designed to have the opposite effect - making dispensaries the more viable option (assumedly for tax purposes) . I'm not sure if clones/vegging plants are included in the 4 plant per patient limit, but I can't imagine a caregiver being able to house more than 1-2 strains given such strict requirements. Also, with caregivers only able to provide one ounce to their patients at a time, I can definitely see the patients' needs being better met at dispensaries, which they will most likely *need* to visit, when waiting for their next harvested single ounce.

Still, you make it sound like the laws will be easily amenable, so any progression is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Your skepticism is definitely justified; though I would hope it otherwise. I'll hang on to my optimism a bit and watch how this takes form. There is the possibility of positive amendments to the bill before it becomes law. It's too bad the threat of persecution keeps our voices out of the crafting of bills like this.
 
I

incognegro999

Well-Known Member
for sure! It wouldnt even matter if my state (wink wink) finally builds the casino's they have been debating for twenty years
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
incognegro999 said:
for sure! It wouldnt even matter if my state (wink wink) finally builds the casino's they have been debating for twenty years
Click to expand...
I had this conversation with a guy who claimed to be with the mob (seemed legit, but that's another story). He was overseeing some of the online gambling companies that sprang up in Costa Rico. As he put it, "Civilization has always needed three things: gambling, women and drugs. Nothing wrong with what I do; I give civilization what it needs."

IMHO, casinos do more societal harm than legalized weed would. It's just that a larger number of people crave gambling than the herb, so we legalize the thing that causes more harm, and persecute folks for the less harmful vice.

I have a lot of gratitude for the growers who share their knowledge. They have helped popularize what the powers that be wanted to criminalize-- because of them, legalization is just a matter of time.

If ever true legalization happens, I am going to have the biggest damn party at my place for RIU members in the area.
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-weir-ct-medical-marijuana-0226-20110226,0,1743939.storyHere is another article, this time in the Hartford Courant regarding the MedMJ bill.

http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-weir-ct-medical-marijuana-0226-20110226,0,1743939.story

Here are some highlights:

"An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana" is scheduled to go before the judiciary committee next month. Officials from the governor's office said its public hearing has a tentative date of March 14.

A physician's certification is not the same as a prescription. A 1982 state law allows doctors to write prescriptions for marijuana, but it is ineffectual because federal laws prevent doctors from doing so. By the proposal's provisions, doctors can write certifications without fear of state or federal prosecution.

Lawlor said the wording of the bill is the same as the 2007 measure that Rell vetoed. That bill passed the Senate 32-13 and the House of Representatives 89-58.
"It passed with pretty significant margins in the House and Senate four years ago and there doesn't seem to be any less support for it," Lawlor said. "It seems to be a trend around the county and certainly in Connecticut. It think it's regrettable that the governor vetoed it last time."
One of the criticisms of the bill in 2007 was that it made no provision for how holders of the certifications would obtain the seeds to grow the marijuana.
Looney, a co-signer of the bill, said the urgency of allowing people who need medical marijuana calls for action now and refinements to the law could come later. (emphasis added)
 
I

incognegro999

Well-Known Member
Alot of this stuff could be avoided if the lawmakers would just dust off the ol constitution once in a while and read the tenth amendment haha. It is literally illegal to be punished federally for following a state law.
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
Just got back from a weekend trip to visit family...

+ Rep for the reference to the 10th that got me to do some interesting reading on the amendment, commerce clause and Gonzales v. Raich.

Wikipedia had some well written (and disturbing) stuff written that I would recommend to anyone concerned with the overreach of the Federal Govt.
 
Nitegazer

Nitegazer

Well-Known Member
I'm feeling good about the prospects of Med MJ in CT this year. Popular support is high (no pun intended).

Monday is the public hearing on both decriminalization and Med MJ. I will report my impression of how it goes, and the key news articles on Monday evening. Those interested should be able to watch the session live at http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/


From the March 10 Poll:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1566

Voters support 79 - 17 percent allowing adults to use marijuana if a doctor prescribes it for medical reasons. Support is over 70 percent among every group in the survey. :clap:

Connecticut voters also support 65 - 32 percent decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Support ranges from 53 - 45 percent among Republicans to 70 - 27 percent among Democrats, from 70 - 28 percent among voters 18 to 34 years old to 58 - 38 percent among voters over 65 years old. No group is opposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top