PA Medical Marijuana Law

[GeneCC]

Will Cancer patients in PA who need Marijuana have to decide between death from disease or death from victimhood?

Hope we are not done dirty like they are in Illinois.

Lawmakers from the state of Illinois have proposed new medical marijuana rules that coerce patients to surrender their Second Amendment right in the application process.

The new medical marijuana "legalization" bill requires Illinois citizens to undergo a background check, be fingerprinted and pay an additional $150 fine for using marijuana for medical purposes.

On top of that and most disturbing of all, Illinois citizens will also be required to sign away their right to own a firearm in the application process.

Personal liberty and responsibility has become a dead idea in the state of Illinois, as the right to bear arms becomes a perishable right dictated through laws regulating strict control of a plant.

http://www.naturalnews.com/043649_Se..._Illinois.html

[GeneCC]

Some are going to say "Good!".

How will you all feel when going into Rehab for drinking, taking psych meds because of a catastrophe or needing to keep your lunch down while in Chemo turns you into a Second Class citizen?

I figure, as long as you are not running around stoned while armed it's nobody's business what you do.

[GeneCC]

Patients who want to qualify for medical marijuana in Illinois would have to be fingerprinted for a background check and pay $150 a year — and give up their right to own a gun, state officials proposed Tuesday.

The plan outlines how adults who have any of 41 specified medical conditions, such as cancer, AIDS or complex regional pain syndrome, may apply to get a patient registry identification card to purchase medical pot.

The proposed rules are the first in a series of parameters expected to be outlined over the course of the year to govern how medical marijuana can be legally grown, sold and purchased. The Illinois Department of Public Health will take public comment on this set of rules until Feb. 7 and then submit them to a legislative panel for approval by the end of April.

Most of the rules address how a patient can qualify for an ID card to buy up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks — or more if a doctor certifies that it's necessary.

One new proposal states that a qualifying patient or caregiver may not possess a firearm, even if they have a state firearm owner's identification card or concealed carry permit, and violators may be subject to sanctions by state police.

Todd Vandermyde, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said the NRA takes no position on the issue but that the rule seems to be an attempt to interpret federal law. A U.S. Department of Justice firearm application form asks if the buyer is "an unlawful user" of marijuana or other controlled substances.

Illinois regulations make clear that pot possession is still prohibited by federal law, and the state denies liability for damages arising from the program, including federal prosecution.

"It presents a novel legal conundrum," Vandermyde said. "The courts are going to have to reconcile it."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...on-medical-pot

[Statkowski]

First, I don't smoke pot. I do smoke "pipe tobacco," but that's really a taxation issue.

As I see it, is if all the drugs, and including marijuana as a drug, if all of them weren't illegal before 1912, then why did they all suddenly become illegal? The answer is control, nothing less. The government knows what's best for us. Lucky us. The percentage of people addicted really hasn't changed. So much for my rant on getting rid of the drug laws. Yes, there are stupid people out there, and the really stupid people will weed themselves out (no pun intended).

Back on track, the problem with relaxing the marijuana laws from the bottom up pits states against the federal government. Got pot? No guns. And, even if the state says you can have guns, the federales say you can't. What's a user to do? It is a conundrum.

And then you have all the legal marijuana outlets raking in cash hand over fist, and they can't use plastic to cut down on the cash on hand. Oh, want to use a gun to protect your legal establishment? Hmmm, see the last sentence of the preceding paragraph. Want your legal establishment to get a bank account to safely store all your cash? Well, if it's federally-chartered or insured, forget it. Even if it's a state-chartered/insured bank, forget it. Everyone's rightfully leery of getting snagged on federal drug money laundering charges.

Relaxing one law creates a whole new set of problems.

[ROCK-IT3]

I understand the point of your post according to the excerpt of the article posted, that a person should not have to relinquish any rights in order to receive needed medical treatment,and I agree, but I have to ask: "Has someone discovered that marijuana cures cancer?" Your comments in the OP seem to indicate that you believe marijuana will cure a disease, when in reality it is used simply as a pain-killer covering the effects of the disease. As far as I know, no one will be staving off death by smoking it, regardless of the disease they have.

[wanneroo]

I understand the point of your post according to the excerpt of the article posted, that a person should not have to relinquish any rights in order to receive needed medical treatment,and I agree, but I have to ask: "Has someone discovered that marijuana cures cancer?" Your comments in the OP seem to indicate that you believe marijuana will cure a disease, when in reality it is used simply as a pain-killer covering the effects of the disease. As far as I know, no one will be staving off death by smoking it, regardless of the disease they have.

There are pot advocates out there that believe it "cures" just about any disease out there.

As someone that educated myself about the effects and having seen people on it, short term and long term, it is a brain altering drug that causes a variety of severe health problems.

As I have explained to potheads in Colorado to no avail, it's still illegal under Federal law and you can find yourself in various forms of trouble with the Feds in regards to all of this. barack obama, leader of the Choom Gang, he might have waived or thought about waiving "enforcement" but that means nothing. A variety of laws are on the books and bureaucrats and judicial figures will act accordingly in many cases. As it stands look at the folks who come to this forum alone to have a cry about how they told a porky pie lie on the 4473 and now they are in legal trouble. I'm sure there are people that answer question 11e on the 4473 falsely and might be setting themselves up for legal issues.

As the ATF says:

http://www.atf.gov/files/press/relea...l-purposes.pdf

[gummy jones]

War on drugs aside pot doesn't cure cancer and, as far as analgesics go, isn't a very good one. It causes euphoria and is an appetite stimulant.

Legalize it, don't legalize it, but either way let's be honest about what it is and isn't.

[Philbert]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/p...essional/page1

[RockIsland]

Hemp was used as currency for a time in the early colonial days. Its uses are just about unlimited. Most of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence grew it and used it in their daily life.

Here's a few towns in the United States whose legacy in hemp is still evident in their names.

Hempwallace, AR
Hemp Swamp Brook, CT
Hempstead Brook, CT
Hemp Key, FL
Hemp, GA
Hemp Factory Branch, IL
Hemp Ridge, KY
Hemphill, KY
Hemphill, LA
Hempfield Lake, MI
Hemphill Lake, MN
Hemple, MO
Hemp Hill, NH
Hempstead, NY
New Hempstead, NY
Rockland Hempstead Gardens, NY
Hemp Patch Branch NC
Hemphill Bald, NC
Hemphill Creek, NC
Hemphill Knob, NC
Hempfield, PA
Hemp Branch, SC
Hemphill Lake, SC
Hemp Fork, VA
Hemphill, TX
Hempstead, TX
Hemp Mill Branch, VA
Hemppatch Branch, VA
Hemppatch Mountain, VA,
Hemp Hill Creek, WA
Hempel Creek, WA
Hempel Lake, WA
Hemphill, WV
Hempton Lake, WI

It was made illegal in the 1930's because of intense political pressure and propaganda by chemical companies like DuPont. Breakthroughs in synthesizing it into fuel and resins were being discovered. That would hurt their bottom line.

Reefer Madness!!!

The darkies are gonna get all hopped up and rape our women!!!

It's always reminded me of Cop Killer Bullets! and Baby Killing Assault Rifles!

Hysteria and vilification instead of an honest intelligent debate. Sound familiar?

Alcohol prohibition gave rise to illegal black markets, crime, and the gangsters and corrupt officials getting rich off of it. I'm glad that drug prohibition hasn't done any of that. 😳

At least back then they were able to see that it didn't work and that prohibition was a mistake. Less than ten years later, they did the same exact thing with ol Mary Jane. How's that been working out?

Now they're trying to do it with guns.

[Manxdriver]

My opinion: I have no fear of pot-heads (hell, write me a script and I'll have a bag by sundown) having guns. I have a very well-founded fear of people who are 'habitual users of anti-depressant' drugs. I'm not talking about the people who got a script for the passing of a family member or a life-crisis, and get passed it and need no refill, or one refill. I have problems with the ones who CANNOT function day to day without getting glassy eyed and dopey smiled.

"OH No, I threw a french fry to a little birdie at McDonalds and a mean old squirrel took it from him. Give me a pill to help me cope", or, "Oh , I was watching Puppy Bowl and one puppy stepped on another puppy's foot. Give me a pill". Yeah, those people scare me! If you can't function without a pill, or several a day (which is a lot more common than you may think) you really should NOT have access to a weapon.

Having dealt with drunks and potheads who needed to be arrested in the Air Force, I'll take the pothead every day of the week and twice on Sunday before I'll volunteer to arrest the drunk. Potheads don't want to fight, they just want to mellow out and get friendly with a pizza. Yeah, grass is not something horrible to be feared. The rest of the stuff out there is the evil shit.

The whole War on Drugs should be shit-canned. It's ruined a bunch of lives, and for nothing. Let the druggies self-regulate themselves into the ground if they want to. Selling to kids, or using behind the wheel, that sort of thing, public endangerment, sure we need strong punishment, not probations or wrist slaps. But recreational use. Yeah, that should be legal. Just my opinion.


Edit to add: Wanneroo, I just saw your post and while it says "unlawful user", I would argue that if the State I'm in provides for "legal, medical use with a prescription" well, that sort of indicates 'legal user'. I know, the Fed still makes it illegal, but what exactly are the 'individual states' as set up by the Founding Fathers? They ARE 'individual experiments in Liberty'. As written, our Constitution doesn't not allow the
Fed to over-ride state law except in 'interstate commerce issues'. And 'interstate commerce' was surely not put there to cover everything from toilet seat heights in public restrooms to 'right turn on red' laws. That the Fed has grabbed all that power is WRONG, and needs to be reversed.