About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Gov. Lynch vetoes Medical Marijuana

by: NHFlatlander

Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 11:47:10 AM EDT


(Not surprised. - promoted by Dean Barker)

http://www.governor.nh.gov/new...

By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on July 10, 2009, I vetoed HB 648-FN, an act relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
NHFlatlander :: Gov. Lynch vetoes Medical Marijuana
   

By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on July 10, 2009, I vetoed HB 648-FN, an act relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

I have tremendous compassion for people who believe medical marijuana will help alleviate the symptoms of serious illnesses and the side effects of medical treatment. Although opinion of the medical community on the efficacy of medical marijuana remains mixed, I have been open, and remain open, to allowing tightly controlled usage of marijuana for appropriate medical purposes. But in making laws it is not enough to have an idea worthy of consideration, the details of the legislation must also be right.

I recognize that the sponsors of this legislation, and the members of the conference committee, worked hard to attempt to address the concerns raised about this legislation. However, after consulting with representatives of the appropriate state agencies and law enforcement officials, I believe this legislation still has too many defects to move forward.

Law enforcement officials have raised legitimate public safety concerns regarding the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. These concerns have not been adequately addressed in this bill. Marijuana is an addictive drug that has the potential to pose significant health dangers to its users, and it remains the most widely abused illegal drug in this State. I am concerned about the quantities of the drug made available to patients and caregivers under this bill, particularly because there are different types of marijuana and the potency of marijuana can vary greatly depending on how it is cultivated. I am troubled by the potential for unauthorized redistribution of marijuana from compassion centers. In addition to patients and designated caregivers, an unlimited number of "volunteers" can receive registry cards and receive the full protections afforded under this legislation to authorized cardholders. The provisions made for law enforcement to check on the status of an individual who asserts protection under the proposed law are too narrow.

There are also many inconsistencies and structural problems in the legislation that would greatly complicate its administration and would pose barriers to controls aimed at preventing the unauthorized use of marijuana. The bill does not clearly restrict the use of marijuana to those persons who are suffering severe pain, seizures or nausea as a result of a qualifying medical condition. The bill requires compassion centers to hold a license to cultivate and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes, but the bill does not contain clear provisions regarding a licensing process or standards. Compassion centers can be penalized for distributing amounts of marijuana that exceed permissible limitations, without the compassion centers having the means to know how much marijuana the patient already possesses. Caregivers in some instances are required to control the dosage of marijuana without any real means to accomplish this task. The bill leaves unclear the authority of a landlord to control the use of marijuana on rented property and in common areas of property. While the bill contemplates self-funding, there have been inadequate fiscal studies. The Department of Health and Human Services' administrative responsibilities are of such a magnitude under this legislation that the fees potentially would be so great as to deny access to anyone but the wealthiest of our citizens, resulting in potential inequities.

I understand and empathize with the advocates for allowing medical marijuana use in New Hampshire. However, the fact remains that marijuana use for any purpose remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, if we are to allow its use in New Hampshire for medical purposes, we must ensure that we are implementing the right policy. We cannot set a lower bar for medical marijuana than we do for other controlled substances, and we cannot implement a law that still has serious flaws.

Therefore, I am regretfully vetoing HB 648-FN.  

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
he's oozing with compassion all right (4.00 / 5)
but it's for law enforcement. Of course they have lobbyists - and the terminally ill do not.

Both the House and the Senate passed this bill, and jumped through hoops for Lynch, where this bill was concerned. The people of this state wanted this legislation passed - and Lynch is too big a weenie to do it - as he's been too big a weenie on so many other issues.

The cook out is over for me. No more weenies.  


What's in it for law enforcement? (0.00 / 0)
A serious question.  Is it that possession of marijuana is a useful tool that allows them to arrest people they suspect of other offenses?  Or do they seem to honestly be opposed to marijuana itself?

[ Parent ]
money (4.00 / 1)
The war on drugs is a cash cow - and the cash trickles from a variety of government agencies  all the way down to local police departments.  

[ Parent ]
I was hoping that maybe.... (0.00 / 0)
I was hoping that maybe he was going to sign HB648 and maybe a disagreement over medical marijuana was the real reason the AG quit.  But nooooo....


After several years of unflagging support, (4.00 / 1)
I am all done. Hope we can elect a Democrat the next time.

Important concern (0.00 / 0)
If folks bail on Lynch, will this suppress voter turnout? And if they go to the polls, will they bullet vote, leaving Lynch high and dry?

Hmmmm....

How would a boycott effect other Dems?

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Good point, Jack. (4.00 / 1)
And I may yet be forced to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two weevils, but I don't plan to shell out money or stick signs on my lawn again.

[ Parent ]
Free Pass (4.00 / 2)
Mike,
My comment wasn't so much an attempt to collect up a lost vote, as it was to pose the question.

In a party as broad as the DP, I'm afraid some will be disappointed with the nominee. And it is hard to win in the center and govern from the left.

www.KusterforCongress.com  


[ Parent ]
Maybe. (4.00 / 2)
And it is hard to win in the center and govern from the left.

But it would've been pretty darn easy for him to govern from the middle on this one, instead of from the middle of the right wing.

Republicans die in hospice, too.


[ Parent ]
BTW, (0.00 / 0)
I did write to the Gov to express my displeasure directly, and hope others will do the same.

[ Parent ]
Distribution (4.00 / 2)
As noted, I have no dog in this, being a flatlander. However, also as noted (or implied), on principle I would prefer that Lynch signed the bill.

That said, I feel duty-bound to observe that distribution is a valid concern. I was in California last month. On Venice Beach, there are a lot of guys -- a lot -- selling "medical marijuana." I was told California issues licenses, but the licenses are either easy to get or easy to fake.

It's not hard to picture a similar scene on Hampton Beach.



Yes, there are many valid concerns (4.00 / 1)
Which the Governor - if her were doing his job - would have raised during the legislative markups.

Perhaps he is Leading By Example, having begun his furlough in May.


[ Parent ]
I thought he expressed (4.00 / 3)
his concerns during or right before the committee of conference worked on the bill. I thought the version that came out of that committee addressed those concerns.

[ Parent ]
Lynch needs to volunteer at a hospice. (4.00 / 6)


Every year I participate (4.00 / 2)
in the DHMC Norris Cotton Cancer Center Prouty fundraiser walk/bike ride, for reasons I will not share on the blog.

The event is filled with cancer survivors, cancer patients, cancer patient caregivers, medical workers, etc...

A couple Proutys ago Governor Lynch was there riding a bike or something.

I wonder if he will show under the circumstances.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I'm a prude, almost to the point of ridiculousness, about illegal substances.  Moreover, I prefer to live my life with as clear a mind as possible. As something of a control freak, I do not want to be under anyone or anything's influence other than my own.

But I have seen the inside of a chemo ward more than once.  And if there is a way to lessen the pain or suffering of those who are there with medical marijuana, there really is no question.

I'm sad some deperately ill people will have to suffer more because of stoopid culture wars that have nothing to do with them and their illnesses.  


[ Parent ]
Sad. Bad. (4.00 / 4)
Just those two words will do.

What about booze? (4.00 / 1)
Law enforcement officials have raised legitimate public safety concerns regarding the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. These concerns have not been adequately addressed in this bill. Marijuana is an addictive drug that has the potential to pose significant health dangers to its users, and it remains the most widely abused illegal drug in this State.

I am a John Lynch fan.  I have also never smoked pot or been drunk. . . . That said, I find the double standard involving these two substances to be mind-boggling. Is alcohol not "an addictive drug that has the potential to pose significant health dangers to its users"?  We know the answer.

Since Gov. Lynch has vetoed this bill, the onus is on him to propose an option that "tightly controls" access to those people in genuine need.  That will be a test of his compassion.  I hope he works diligently to make this happen.


The state is in the addictive drug sales biz (4.00 / 3)
I doubt if he's gonna give up selling booze and cigarettes - and both of them cause far more damage than marijuana.  

[ Parent ]
This seems logical, (4.00 / 1)
the onus is on him to propose an option that "tightly controls" access to those people in genuine need

but will he be able to clearly articulate this option (which he certainly did not do in the statement), and when will it happen? Or, is this going to become a "guess again" scenario?

Is any version of this bill going to mollify those whisperers who obviously have his full attention?

I'm not so sure.


[ Parent ]
The Real Reason (4.00 / 1)
For a while I was baffled as to why.
he knows his argument is pure baloney.
Then it came to me:

He figured he looked weak, caving to the equal marriage pressure.
So now, with a much smaller constituency that cares, he looks tough.

That's it.
This is unconscionable. Unforgivable.  

No'm Sayn?


No (4.00 / 1)
Not everybody who disagrees with you (or me) is craven, Burt.  You said the exact same thing about his veto of the gay marriage bill, but Gov. Lynch was true to his word.  The result speaks for itself.

I believe strongly that marijuana should be available to people in chronic pain and those who are terminally ill.  Let's give Gov. Lynch the chance to identify and address the "defects" he cited -- before slamming him the way you just did.  


[ Parent ]
Ahem. (4.00 / 2)
Governor Lynch HAD the chance to address those defects for many months.

[ Parent ]
Packing up for a week in Maine (4.00 / 2)
We go with 2 other families.

I'm not a big drinker but I have a bottle of Tequila and some Cointreau for our Tex/Mex night. A bottle of wine, half a bottle of Vodka that has been laying around for 2 years. Certainly enough to make me very sick or send one of the kids to the hospital if they got into it.

The State did not seem to mind selling it to me.

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.


Mike (4.00 / 3)
be careful in Maine - they have medical marijuana! You'll undoubtedly be accosted by salespersons at every street corner.  

[ Parent ]
Regressive Taxation? (4.00 / 1)
..that the fees potentially would be so great as to deny access to anyone but the wealthiest of our citizens, resulting in potential inequities.

Regressive pricing on medical Marijuana=bad, regressive property tax good?

I'm confused...

Hope > Fear



Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.


Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox