“Modern medical research has discovered beneficial uses for cannabis in treating or alleviating pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with certain debilitating medical conditions, as found by the National Academy of Sciences."
“According to the United States Sentencing Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 99 out of 100 cannabis arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing State law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use cannabis.”
Above are the opening two paragraphs of North Carolina House Bill 185, short title, “Legalize Medical Marijuana”.
Modern Medical Research has not discovered anything new or otherwise. All modern medical research has discovered is that the empirical evidence developed by their community is now so overwhelmingly in support of the 9000 years of traditional knowledge regarding cannabis that to continue to deny fact would destroy their reputation as a body of intellectual honesty.
Now that the medical community, the scientific community and the people of the state (see the results of the Elon College poll on medical cannabis on the next page) are aligned as a single voice in support of medical cannabis, the general assembly has no correct course other than to declare a total moratorium on all cannabis related arrests and prosecutions until this matter is resolved to the satisfaction of all. As the war on drugs was undeniably a formally declared war (see Richard Nixon, 1973) failure to “cease fire” as a result of this “new” information would expose every legislator to questions as to whether failing, on their part, to stop the continuing arrests and prosecutions of cannabis users would constitute terrorism and or war crimes.
If cannabis is, as the medical community, the scientific community and the people of the state all agree, in fact, good for ones’ health to consume, does the government have the right to restrict human access to the plant? The answer is no.
The governments mandate is to regulate the commercial aspects of cannabis trade and provide a level playing field for those involved in the trade. When the label and advertising of cannabis commercial product claims that it cures cancer, does it? If the label claims the product is organically grown, non-gmo, mold and pesticide free is it? If the table claims the product is 20% THC and 10% CBD, is it?
If the government is going to allow corporations to manufacture cannabis products for profit then not allowing the individual to manufacture and possess the same for himself is an unfair trade practice and discriminatory unless the individual were to enter commerce and sell the product he produced.
Legislation is a contract between the governors and the governed. From the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” We consent to legislation. House Bill 185 is a preliminary contract between the two parties outlining the terms of the agreement. The problem is that the terms outlined at this moment in time are not necessarily those that will exist in the final form. While we will comment about this preliminary Article our consent to be governed by it will not be issued until we have seen the final product.
Support was widespread across age, race, gender, income, and partisanship, but support was greatest among non-religious individuals, Democrats and younger respondents (under the age of 40). Eighty-seven percent of Democrats said they supported medical marijuana compared to 82 percent of Independents and 66 percent of Republicans. These results match national numbers and trends, but the use of the word “cancer” in the survey question is likely to evoke sympathy from many respondents and thus the results here are not comparable to those surveys that do not use cancer as an example.
Party Identification and Medical Marijuana
Party Identification and Medical Marijuana
|Don't Know / Refused||87||13|
Gender and Medical Marijuana
Race and Medical Marijuana
Age and Medical Marijuana
Income and Medical Marijuana
|Less than $25,000||85||15|
|$25,000 to $50,000||80||20|
|$50,000 to $75,000||81||19|
|More than $75,000||77||23|
Religious Tradition and Medical Marijuana
Church Attendance and Medical Marijuana
|Few Times Yearly||92||8|
|Up to Twice Monthly||85||15|
Basic Methodological Information
Mode: Live Interviewer RDD Telephone Interviews (Dual Frame: Cell Phone and Landlines) Sample Area: North Carolina Dates in the field: February 24 – February 28, 2013 Sample Size 891 Margin of Error ±3.28 Confidence Level 95% Weighting Variables Age , Race, Gender, and Phone Ownership
First, and most important is the concept of the home grow. There appears to be no licensing fees other than the $10.00 registration card requirement accompanied by a physicians recommendation. This item must remain intact in order to obtain NCCPN support for this initiative.
There is some confusion as to the definition of adequate supply. The legislative findings section states that based upon the government IND program, typical annual use is accepted by the government to be 6.5 pounds of flower and bud. The same section references the 1992 DEA published report stating that 250 square feet of cannabis cover will produce 6 pounds of usable product.
From the definitions section:
A landrace sativa grown outdoors is a ten month experience. Then there is a minimum three month cure. If a qualified patient is to provide for his allotment of 6 pounds per year grown outdoors he will be under limits until maturation and then over limit until he smokes 4.5 pounds.
This is overly complex, unnecessary, and possibly illegal. The qualifications defined in the affirmative defense section of HB 185 should apply. It states that, if you can prove your need for medical cannabis as defined in this Article and you have operated within the guidelines defined by this Article the quantity grown is irrelevant. Amounts only become relevant and able to be regulated by the government if and when there is a sale.
NCCPN support for HB 185 depends upon home grow provisions remaining intact.
NCCPN objects to laws restricting the amount of medications patients are allowed. This is between a doctor and a patient.
Licenses are issued for a period of 12 months.
Setting up a licensed grow operation or a retail dispensary is capital intensive.
Compliance is based on the requirements listed in the bill.
Felony records for certain things are disqualifying issues. Have to be a resident for 2 years I believe. Other than that you have to be approved by whoever will approve the applications. This process could be a massive bottleneck like it has in other states. Nowhere near enough people to do the work required to see if people are eligible. This will set back opening dates of farms and dispensaries. All of the board has to be listed, grow and sell sites listed on applications. Once all of these things are accomplished, why redo it every year? Will units have to shut down because there is a bottle neck in application renewal applications?
Potential for abuse lies in the fact it's up to the discretion of a few to renew licenses. No mention of automatic renewal for those that have passed inspection and keep things paid and up to date. This opens the door for political contributions to sway decision making on the regulatory board. It would appear that the government could arbitrarily refuse to renew a license for someone in compliance. There is great potential for abuse.