 |
 |
At 09:30 AM 10/14/2000 -0300, you wrote: >Hi Marjorie , just you . :-) > > >Are you sure on this ? > >Cheers, >Joao Paulo - Salvador,BA,Brazil >[log in to unmask] HI Joao, All I know is what I read in the newspapers. Colorado To Vote on Marijuana Uses Posted by FoM on September 13, 2000 at 07:34:14 PT By Tim Creasey, Rocky Mountain Collegian Source: U-WIRE Coloradans will vote this year to allow seriously ill patients to use marijuana to help quell their ailments. If Amendment 20, the medical marijuana initiative, passes, it will be up to the state to define "medical necessity" of the drug. On Aug. 29, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to close a California "cannabis club" that catered to those who are legally able to use marijuana in that state. The decision was "a stay of a lower court order to preserve the status quo while (the new medical necessity guidelines) were reviewed, not a ruling about medical necessity as a doctrine," said Robert Raich, the attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC). The 7-1 decision of the Supreme Court shut down the OCBC because the medical necessity definition was unclear. Julie Roche, campaign director for Coloradans for Medical Rights, said the ruling would do "nothing directly or indirectly" to Colorado's ballot proposal because it was specific to the appeals court in California. Medical necessity is a doctrine originating in old English common law. States in the U.S. develop their own positions and processes for qualification as medical necessity. The Supreme Court decision overruled a ruling by the ninth circuit U.S. Court of appeals. The appeals court denied a request by the federal government to stop the OCBC from distributing marijuana to patients with prescriptions. The decision by the appeals court also created guidelines for marijuana use, which would classify it under "medical necessity." The court outlined four criteria that would guide the use of marijuana in a medical setting: 1. Patient must suffer from serious illness. 2. Patient faces immediate harm without cannabis. 3. Patient needs authorization for cannabis treatment. 4. Patient has no responsible alternatives because other methods are ineffective or have harmful side effects. The state of California had a six-step process to determine medical necessity, and the decision of the appeals court would have altered the process for defining medical necessity. The Supreme Court decision struck down the four-step process of the appeals court in favor of California's six-step process, which OCBC now needs to meet. Colorado does not have a clear policy like California does, and the Supreme Court ruling was directed only at the specific California interpretation. "The court was ruling on a narrow procedural issue," said Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws in a statement. Medicinal marijuana has been in the national spotlight for several years, beginning on the west coast. Since California passed an initiative allowing medical use of marijuana in 1996, multiple courts have made decisions concerning the legality and details of such propositions. Since California's action, six states have taken steps this year. Unlike California, Colorado does not have a systematic definition of medical necessity. The initiative in Colorado will appear on the ballot, and will not be impacted by the decision. Colorado voters saw the initiative in print on the 1998 ballot, but the late Secretary of State Vicki Buckley ruled that the initiative had not met petition requirements due to a signature controversy. A court in Colorado later ruled that the initiative had legitimate support and signatures, so it received automatic placement on the 2000 ballot. Roche said the measure addresses an "immediate need to protect people who are using and need to use it." If passed, the statewide initiative will provide patients who fall under special guidelines the right to grow, possess and consume marijuana for medical reasons. Exit polls conducted by the supporting group showed around 60 percent support for the measure in 1998. (U-WIRE) Fort Collins, Colo. Updated 12:00 PM ET September 12, 2000 (C) 2000 Rocky Mountain Collegian via U-WIRE Related Articles & Web Sites: NORML http://www.norml.org/ Coloradans For Medical Rights http://www.medicalmarijuana.com/ Drug Policy Forum of Colorado http://www.drugsense.org/dpfco/ Medical Marijuana Amendment Flawed http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6993.shtml It's Bad Medicine, It's Bad Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6986.shtml Medical Marijuana Foes Irked http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6961.shtml CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives: http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Post Comment Main Menu Register Name Help Comment #1 posted by freedom fighter on September 13, 2000 at 07:54:00 PT the local tv news was talking about cannabis a couple days ago and did a poll and said that 71% support the amendment. I hope so! \/ [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: Return to Main Menu So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason! This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of Medical Marijuana Law Deserves a Fair T