LEGALIZE MEDICINAL MARIJUANA USE

In 1992, Gov. William Weld signed into law the "Controlled Substance
Therapeutic Research Act." The law requires the state to contract
with a federally approved supplier of medicinal cannabis for
distribution to approved patients. It is a cruel joke, for no
administration, including the current one, has approved a supply.

Filed every session since 1991, legislation that would get the
medicine into the hands of Massachusetts patients never gets out of
committee. While our Legislature stalls, states comprising almost
one-third of all Americans enacted laws that gets cannabis to
patients without the approval of the Federal Government. The
legislatures of Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont did it.
This spring, over the governor's veto, the Rhode Island Legislature
authorized the licensing of dispensaries where patients may purchase
their medicine. Voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine,
Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and
Washington passed laws effectively permitting qualified patients'
access. These laws work.

In Congress, there is legislation that would allow states, including
Massachusetts, to permit its growth and use for medicine, but despite
growing bi-partisan support, it too languishes. Re-filed this past
spring by Congressman Barney Frank, as we write only John Olver and
James McGovern are co-sponsors. In past sessions, three other members
of Massachusetts' delegation also co-sponsored.

As they did in working for decriminalization, MassCann members placed
public policy questions on district ballots beginning in 2000 to
measure public support for allowing seriously ill patients, with
their doctor's written recommendation, to possess and grow small
amounts for their personal medical use. That support is well over 70
percent. Nine of our state's 10 representatives in Congress recognize
this. They regularly vote yes on amendments to the Justice Department
budget prohibiting the DEA from raiding dispensaries, caregivers and
patients in compliance with their state's law. The lone holdout is
Rep. Stephen Lynch. Prominent opponent of Question 2, Attorney
General Martha Coakley, approved the concept during her monthly
appearance on the Braude and Eagan Show on WTKK FM 96.9 in June.

Beacon Hill ignored the will of the voters expressed in the public
policy questions on decriminalization of possession. The result, 65
percent of the voters approved Question 2, a law that did not
resemble the decriminalization proposals filed in the Legislature the
decade before. It is unconscionable that once again, the Legislature
and governor refuse to accept the known support of the people of the
idea of allowing to patients a medicine that in 1988, an
administrative law judge of the Drug Enforcement Administration
concluded is "the safest therapeutically active substance known."

Since that finding was made, scientific research and the experience
of hundreds of thousands of patients show it to be effective for
controlling chronic diseases or the side effects of primary
treatments. The testimony of patients before the Massachusetts
legislature and elsewhere establish that patients who use
black-market priced cannabis use it as a substitute for far more
dangerous and expensive prescription drugs. Legalizing the medicinal
use of cannabis is health care reform independent of the current
focus on the cost of insurance.

It is only a question of when Massachusetts will have a real
medicinal cannabis law. If the Legislature does not act this session
- - the sooner the better for patients - as surely as the sun rose this
morning, an initiative petition will be filed by an out of state
organization on Aug. 3, 2011. On Election Day 2012, it will receive
overwhelming approval by the people. It probably will not resemble
House, No. 2160 or Senate, No. 1739 now before the legislature for
the fifth time in five sessions.

We think it is important that Massachusetts' medicinal cannabis
legislation be homegrown, to fit the culture of the Commonwealth, not
California's. Too bad, it looks like our Legislature does not care.