Connecticut May Soon Join the Club

As we come up to the public hearings for Medical MJ and other decriminalization efforts, here are a couple of news articles this weekend. I find it noteworthy that the articles seem to favor reform.

http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Malloy-says-it-s-time-to-decriminalize-minor-1099669.php

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/03/13/news/aa1pot031211.txt?viewmode=4

IMO, the biggest barrier to the law's passage will be getting onto the House and Senate calendars this year. The good news is that Looney (Majority Leader) sponsored the bill in 2007 (vetoed by the Governor), and Donovan (House Speaker) is sponsor this time around. All in all, there seems to be a lot of support in the measure.

Still, every call to a legislator supporting the measure will help. So if you are reading this, do what you can to support reform-- call, write or visit your legislators in support of SB1015 (Medical MJ) and SB1014 (decriminalization)

The public hearing went well, and the news still seems to favor the idea. I only got to see some of the testimony and will watch the rest-- you can, too (Click on the Judiciary link):http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/daily_schedule.asp#

CT-N will move the link at some point to 'archived'

Here is the Hartford Couran't report on the event:
http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-weir-medical-marijuana-0315-20110314,0,6538467.story

And here is their editorial on the issue (aptly titled 'Reefer Sanity'):
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-medical-marijuana-0314-20110314,0,7347841.story

Lastly, here is the article on the decriminalization hearing:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-medical-marijuana-0314-20110314,0,7347841.story

Perhaps my favorite quote from any of it is:
"I think it's fair to say that marijuana is not a healthy habit to adopt and I don't think anyone would argue that point, but I think you could say that about a lot of things that you and I and other people do,'' Lawlor said.
"The question is: Is the criminal justice response really appropriate or helpful?'' Lawlor added. "I would argue that if there's no evidence that the rather overwhelming criminal justice response that's been underway for over 40 years hasn't had a measurable impact on the propensity of people to experiment with marijuana ... then arguably it's not working and is diverting our criminal justice resources from where they should be targeted, which is repeat violent and serious offenders.''

Nitegazer.. thank you very much for your pro active aproach and providing a ton of useful information. Unfortunately, I think this MMJ bill will be ultra restrictive to only support chronic and debilitating pain. From what I hear it will be geared more to the terminally ill. Out of all the New England States, I believe CT will be the most conservative. A wider range of conditions should be fought for before this bill gains momentum.

Agreed, Spoc. The law is very conservative, and will indeed help too few people. I feel very positive about it for two reasons:
- It is a foot in the door that I am confident will widen. CT tested the waters with domestic partnerships, and in a few years expanded that to gay marriage. It will be difficult for the legislature to stop from broadening the qualifying conditions in the Medical MJ law. There are many (sad to say) terminal diseases that are just as bad as MS or AIDS. At some point, legislators will get tired of being the gatekeepers for every disease, and will leave it up to a physician. Other unreasonable aspects of the law will be tweaked as well.
- I also have one of the qualifying conditions, and would love to be legal.

The decriminalization bill is also very big. It does seem strange that under the decriminalization bill, patients could acquire their 'monthly' ounce of marijuana, only risking a $100 fine--- makes me wonder why the average Joe would bother going through the process to be legal.

Baby steps, baby steps....

The decriminalization bill will only be useful if it doesn't register on any level. It may be considered an infraction, but will this be visible on a standard background check? I am in a field where a high level of security clearance is mandated. In the case of an infraction, I would still lose my job in a heart beat. Baby steps, but lets get the right foot forward first.

Spoc said:

The decriminalization bill will only be useful if it doesn't register on any level. It may be considered an infraction, but will this be visible on a standard background check? I am in a field where a high level of security clearance is mandated. In the case of an infraction, I would still lose my job in a heart beat. Baby steps, but lets get the right foot forward first.

Click to expand...

That's a good question, for which I have no answer. If anyone else on this site has some insight, please post it.

Spoc said:

The decriminalization bill will only be useful if it doesn't register on any level. It may be considered an infraction, but will this be visible on a standard background check? I am in a field where a high level of security clearance is mandated. In the case of an infraction, I would still lose my job in a heart beat. Baby steps, but lets get the right foot forward first.

Click to expand...

I know that a little information can be a bad thing, but I couldn't help but look up what CT has listed for criminal background checks. The information I found seems to indicate that infractions under SB1014 for possession of under 1 oz of marijuana WOULD NOT be available in criminal background checks:

First, the Statute Section 54-142(k) defines availability of conviction and non-conviction information. It states:
(c) Conviction information shall be available to the public for any purpose.

(d) Nonconviction information shall be available to the subject of the information and to the subject's attorney pursuant to this subsection and subsection (e) of this section. Any person shall, upon satisfactory proof of the person's identity, be entitled to inspect, for purposes of verification and correction, any nonconviction information relating to the person..."

More on Use of Non-Conviction information:
Section 54-142(o)- (a) Nonconviction information disseminated to noncriminal justice agencies shall be used by such agencies only for the purpose for which it was given and shall not be redisseminated.

(b) No agency or individual shall confirm the existence or nonexistence of nonconviction information to any person or agency that would not be eligible to receive the information itself.

That leads us to the definition of 'Conviction Information':
Section 54-142(g)(c)- "Conviction information" means criminal history record information which has not been erased, as provided in section 54-142a, and which discloses that a person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, or was convicted of, any criminal offense, and the terms of the sentence."

That now leads us to the definition of "Criminal Offense":
Section 53a-24 - Offense defined. Application of sentencing provisions to motor vehicle and drug selling violators. (a) The term "offense" means any crime or violation which constitutes a breach of any law of this state or any other state, federal law or local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or to a fine, or both, may be imposed, except one that defines a motor vehicle violation or is deemed to be an infraction. The term "crime" comprises felonies and misdemeanors. Every offense which is not a "crime" is a "violation". Conviction of a violation shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense.

Also from a legislative research document (2005-R192)-"Criminal offenses in Connecticut are classified as felonies, which are offenses punishable by imprisonment for over one year, and misdemeanors, which are offenses punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year."

So, from my reading of the statutes (Note: I am NOT a lawyer!):
-SB 1014 reduces possession of marijuana to an infraction
-An infraction is NOT a criminal offense
-If it is not a criminal offense, it does not constitute a ‘Conviction’, and is therefore ‘Non-Conviction’ information
- Since it is non-conviction information, information regarding possession of less than 1 oz would not be available to the public. All information I could find regarding 'Background Checks' including those for medical personnel, gun permits etc. require that the information relate to 'Criminal Offenses'. Obviously, driving violations have their own rules, but I found nothing that would indicate that type of exception would pertain to marijuana possession.

As those following this thread know, one of the weaker aspects of the CT Medical MJ bill is that it only allows for the possession of 'One ounce of usable marijuana'. It is interesting to note, however, that 'usable marijuana' has a flexible definition:

(from the bill)- "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marijuana plant, and any mixtures or preparations thereof, that are appropriate for the palliative use of marijuana, but does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant

Two things that may provide some relief:

any mixtures or preparations thereof - this does seem to include hash, or bubble. If patients are allowed an ounce of bubble, the amount of medicine comes up to an acceptable level. It would also make it easier for care givers to keep the amount stored between harvests legal.

dried leaves and flowers of the marijuana plant - It is a bit more of a stretch, but if the bud isn't dry, it isn't considered part of the 'usable' quota. Picture providing patients with a bud in a jar being water cured. Until dried, this plant material is not part of the 'usable marijuana' weight limit. The question is what would it be considered?

I'm still hoping for some relaxation in the bill before it becomes law, but it is good to know that there is already a bit of wiggle room (although not that much).

True, SB 1015 is weak, since is severely restricts the number of qualifying conditions and allows for only 1 oz of medicine. HOWEVER, I completely missed that another bill was created since then: HB 6566, which is available through this link:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB06566&which_year=2011

This bill seems to be more carefully considered and has a lot more detail written into it. In terms of clarity, it more broadly considers state regulations that may come into conflict with Medical MJ. For instance: imbibing near schools and parks, legal protections for physicians, etc.

More importantly, the number of conditions recognized is broader:
"cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with objective neurological indication of intractable spasticity, epilepsy, cachexia, wasting syndrome, receiving services in a hospice licensed pursuant to the Public Health Code or certified as a hospice pursuant to 42 USC 1395x, or any other medical condition, medical treatment or disease approved by the Department of Consumer Protection pursuant to regulations adopted under section 11 of this act"

Also the amount of medicine has been given more flexibility:
"The combined amount of marijuana possessed by the qualifying patient and the primary caregiver for compassionate use does not exceed an amount reasonably necessary to ensure uninterrupted availability for a period of three months, as determined by the department (Dept. of Consumer Protection).

The bill is very closely aligned with the Governor's Bill (SB 1015) in that it pairs 1:1 care giver to patient and has much of the same language. It differs principally in being more complete and in giving the Department of Consumer Affairs the ability to regulate the program. This makes sense, because legislators don't want to be too directly involved in something as technical as determining the appropriate amount of medication.

In short, it is a much better bill. Since it was introduced by the Judiciary Committee, there is a good chance that this bill will receive the Joint Favorable and go to the full legislature for a vote.

If you want to support Medical MJ in CT, I recommend you support HB 6566, it's the best thing out there so far. This bill was also being discussed at the 3/13 hearing, though it was lumped together with the other proposal.

I'm starting to feel good about this....

The Judiciary committee has set a date on which it will vote on bills under its purview: April 15. There is no guarantee that the Med MJ law (HB 6566) will be included in the list of bills considered, but since public hearing were already held on the matter, it should be up for consideration.

That means that the next three weeks are key for giving support for this bill. If you are a resident of CT, and suffer needlessly under MJ prohibition, this is the time to get your keyboard or pen into gear.

If you want to have someone friendly look over your draft, please feel free to PM me with it. I would be happy to be your editor/collaborator for a day. You can strip the Town you are in, etc. from it, if you want to ensure your privacy.

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee blessed bill 1015 with a Joint Favorable (no pun intended!). It now heads to the floor of the Senate.

• 

The Senate could pass it, hand it back to another committee for review, or do nothing, HOWEVER, we are now just three steps away from passage (Senate Vote, House Vote, Gov' Signature). As I wrote in an earlier post, the Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker are both on board for the bill, so all looks well.

Important to note that my favorite bill on the topic, #6566, is not going anywhere at this point. It is likely 1015 will win the day.

Here are some recent articles on the topic:
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/04/05/news/doc4d9bbad8c6301423554401.txt

http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-weir-medical-marijuana-0406-20110405,0,7390437.story

Great thread. Scribed. Let's make this happen. Today, medically legal and decrimin. Tomorrow, we'll be able to get the details more suited to others that are suffering.

-Butters

(Butters) said:

Great thread. Scribed. Let's make this happen. Today, medically legal and decrimin. Tomorrow, we'll be able to get the details more suited to others that are suffering.

-Butters

Click to expand...

Welcome Butters,

It's good to have your support. I totally agree that tweaking is needed. Here is a recent editorial from the Hartford Courant that states the difficulty in medical supply:
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-medical-marijuana-bill-20110410,0,3581420.story

Personally, I hope distribution remains with smaller-scale care givers, rather than large co-ops, but the 1 to 1 ratio of caregiver to patient is over the top. This is just one example of what has to be modified for the law to be workable. The Courant also states, correctly, that dosages should be determined by the doctor, rather than the legislature.

It is my guess that the legislature is fully aware that numerous amendments are needed, but want to go slow in the development of CT's medical mj industry. I would guess it will take 4 years or so before the system gets most the kinks out. Better that, than too little oversight with the requisite backlash...

Good morning USA,

In the headlines this morning, the Judiciary Committee has passes decriminalization of marijuana (SB1014). Note this is a 'Governor's Bill', which means if it gets voted on, the Governor will pass it.

Here are the articles:
http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-marijuana-decriminalization-0413-20110412,0,3610039.story

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/04/13/news/doc4da50c32a8d2c454393530.txt

And here's the bill:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=1014&which_year=2011&SUBMIT1.x=0&SUBMIT1.y=0

Important to note that the bill was amended before it passed. The amendment reduces the 'decriminalized' amount to one-half ounce (before it was 1 oz).

There is a funny problem with this bill in the way it interplays with the Medical MJ law (SB1015- also passed by the Judiciary). If you are a medical user, you can go through the hoops or being registered, and perhaps taxed, deal with inspections, etc. and be able to hold 1 oz. OR you could just keep the 1/2oz without dealing with the whole Med MJ thing, and risk, at most, a fine.

As the bills are written, I would recommend to medical users to have your spouse/friend/lover keep the other 1/2 ounce for you so can skip the whole bureaucracy. You need Medical MJ to grow, though.

I have a feeling Medical MJ will have to loosen up considerably before anyone will 'legitimate' their cannabis consumption though registration.

thanks for keeping the information coming. Any progress is good progress in my book. As always you already lightened up my day, thanks! I really hope this works out, I'm so sick of depending on other sketchy people just to acquire a plant.

i have been following this closely myself also..i read tonight that the bill goes to the senate next. how would i be able to find out when it gets scheduled there? thanks for all the good info nitegazer

The MMJ bill has made it through Public Health Committee and now heads to the senate floor for a vote:

http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-weir-medical-marijuana-0504-20110503,0,6931683.story

Of course, as mentioned several time on this thread, the bill is flawed, allowing only a 1:1 caregiver to patient ratio, among other things. From the article:

"Several committee members said they were concerned that the bill doesn't have any provisions as to how patients would get marijuana seeds in the first place. The same concern was brought up last month at a public hearing before the judiciary committee, which also voted to advance the bill. At the time, supporters of the bill said the wording would be modified by the time it comes for a vote by the General Assembly."

Frankly, I think access to seeds is the least of the problems with the bill, but it does seem it is a 'work in progress' which is fine by me. Rep. Ackert has a better sense of the issue:

"The problem with the bill, Ackert said, was the matter of how patients would obtain marijuana. "

CT is struggling with the need to truly provide access to MMJ, and the desire to avoid the large co-op system that exists in several states, and which is being shut down by the Feds. They could just allow more like a 4:1 patient to caregiver ratio, but they haven't called me on the matter yet.

deeznutz420 said:

i have been following this closely myself also..i read tonight that the bill goes to the senate next. how would i be able to find out when it gets scheduled there? thanks for all the good info nitegazer

Click to expand...

Glad you find the info useful. (If) WHEN this becomes law, it will take some serious work to make the system work. All this history on the development of the law will influence where it goes from here.

Regarding timing of the vote on the issue, the bill is #375 on the Senate calendar, and bills queued up are reviewed by number, making it about the 50th bill on the list at this point. It makes political sense to have the MMJ in the middle of the pack-- they don't want this year's legislation to be defined by MMJ. I would guess it will be voted on around the end of the month, but it's anyone's guess.

Yes, the 'other' marijuana bill, the one for decriminalization has made it through another committee (Finance), and heads back to the Senate, hopefully for a vote this time. It is #396 on the calender, so will hopefully be voted on this month.

Here's an article on it:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-conn-marijuana-laws-0511-20110510,0,7329606.story

Not sure why this had to go to finance-- I think it was just to give opponents, like Boucher, a chance to amend the bill. Fortunately all amendments failed.

I am hopeful that withing a couple of weeks, I will be able to announce the passage of SB 1014 and SB 1015.

The Senate just moved Bill 1015 for Medical Marijuana to the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee. No sign that there are any problems; it's just another hoop for the bill to jump through. It also makes sense that since the decriminalization bill went through Finance recently.

It is also an opportunity for amendments to be made to the legislation, though I don't think it will happen. Word on the street is that Gov. Malloy strongly resists any tinkering with his legislation, so I'm thinking this bill will have to be amended (ie. Made workable) next year.