| | Advanced Search

 

Paul Giorgio: Mr. Baker, MA Doesn’t Want a Liar for Governor—MA voters deserve a governor that will tell…

Central MA College Standout: Clark University’s Timothy Conley—Political Science major and track star

Organize + Energize: 4 Ways Getting Organized Will Save You Money—Stop wasting time and money

Patriots’ Day Patriots Primer—In Foxboro, the New England Patriots will begin…

Monfredo: Former Worcester Public School Member Publishes Book—A professional manual for students and professionals

QCC 50th, Celebrating Students: Ato Howard—A Biomedical Engineering student on the rise

MA Beauty Insider: Pedi Nation – Get the Best Pedicure Ever—A guide to finding a pristine pedi place

Fit for Life: Fail to Plan? Plan to Fail—Plan and prioritize, and you will prevail

7 Family Fun Activities for April Vacation—Keep you and the kids sane and entertained

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

 
 

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.