| | Advanced Search

 

Tom Finneran: Running on Envy—America's doctors run the gauntlet of envy

Arthur Schaper: Justina: Still Not Free—The crusade continues

Central MA Up + Comer: Vision Advertising CEO Laura Briere—Meet Central MA's rising stars...

FlyORH: Vote for Worcester in JetBlue Contest—Supporting ORH and JetBlue....

Catch the Moscow Festival Ballet With Your WOO Card—Where will you be WOOing this weekend?

Acclaimed Author Leah Hager Cohen to Give Reading at Holy Cross—Will read from new novel 'No Book but…

NEW: Michael Graham Taking Conservative Talk Show to Atlanta—Headed for a warmer climate

NEW: Worcester’s Wormtown Brewery Wins Denver Int’l Beer Award—A major honor bestowed to a local brewery

Paul Giorgio: Elizabeth Warren is Right on Student Loans—MINDSETTER Paul Giorgio examines the student debt crisis

Central MA College Standout: Smith College’s Megan Baker—Spotlight on a bright student...

 
 

Who Wins With Medical Marijuana?

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

 

With voters preparing to cast their ballots on the issue of medical marijuana this fall, a look at the proposed legislation reveals concerns over whether the federal government will let the policy stand.

Question 3, if passed, would remove state penalties for using marijuana medicinally and create regulations for distribution centers seeking to sell to patients.

However, federal penalties could still prove problematic for distributors.

A Rhode Island Case Study

Question 3 outlines a variety of regulations on the distributors selling the marijuana, which include that only 35 distributors will be licensed across the state, distributors must be non-profits and they can only grow a 120-day supply per customer.

The per customer grow model was previously adopted by Rhode Island when it passed its legislation legalizing medical marijuana in 2009 and caused the federal government to crack down.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island threatened to shut down three “compassion centers” before they even opened, citing concerns about large, for-profit distribution operations.

“The way it was presented at the time, we were concerned over the potential for millions of dollars in profit that could be made at these large distribution centers,” said Jim Martin, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island. “We don’t care if they’re non-profit or not, there was the potential for a large profit to be made.”

Rhode Island recently passed compromise legislation limiting the number of plants a distribution center can grow to 24 or five ounces.

Rhode Island attorney Marc Gertsacov, who represented a compassion center applicant after the law initially passed, said the U.S. Attorney’s reaction came as a complete surprise.

“They were worried that large operations would be a target for burglaries and could be used to sell outside of the licensed operations,” Gertsacov said.

Problems in Massachusetts

Distributors could face the same threats from the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts without stricter regulations on the number of marijuana plants that can be grown.

“Individuals and organizations who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, will be in violation of federal law and be subject to federal enforcement,” reads a statement from U.S. Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz.

A spokesperson from Ortiz’s office would not comment on how large a distribution center could have to be before they would take action against it.

“Federal law unambiguously makes it unlawful to grow, distribute, or possess marijuana other than as part of a federally authorized research program,” Ortiz’s statement reads. “Congress has determined… that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in the United States and has not been determined to be safe and effective by federal health authorities.”

The statement did say the department would not spend “its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment program in compliance with state law.

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Comments:

Stephen Quist

State rights must be respected by the federal government.
Until the people stand up for their states rights the ongoing federal onslaught will continue unabated.
Patients deserve the medicinal medications to alleviate pain and suffering as prescribed by their doctors.
The antiquated stone age mindset of anti-marijuana policy in this country and our state as a whole is untenable and no longer viable.
After Massachusetts voters approves this ballot initiative, we must be prepared to protect our rights at all costs.




Commenting is not available in this channel entry.