NM Politics & The NMMCP

I've just returned from a visit to the round house as the New Mexico legislature prepares for their thirty-day special session. Working with the DPA, the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Coalition and various other entities surrounding the cannabis industry, we were able to meet with a great many legislators to discuss our successful medical cannabis program here in New Mexico. We wanted to update legislators on the progress of the program and to get a feel for how the level of support may have changed now that we are the status quo. To sum up our findings I'd say that we can be cautiously optimistic.

However (and there is always an however) it is imperative that the patients, producers and supporters of the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program understand the ramifications of the recent redistricting decisions. There is a buzz going on talking about how New Mexico's legislature may lean Republican for the first time since 1913. If this happens, the program as we know it may end. That would happen as early as February 2013. This coming election in November will virtually decide the fate of our program. That's scary.

Tell everyone you know who supports the program to do their best to get the word out and work hard for the politicians and candidates who support our cause. It is absolutely crucial that we all pull together and work to be sure that our program is protected. We will begin to provide information (provided by the DPA) about the candidates and incumbents we should work for and those we should work against. Sharing information and resources will make the difference - the producers, patients and supporters need to band together and work hard to save our program. Meantime, we should all contact our legislators and find out whether they are supporters or not.

Thanks,

Reynold Greenleaf

Would this be like when everyone worked against Susana Martinez? She made it into office despite everyone's efforts to the contrary. Does everyone forget that it was a Republican who began the fight to get medical cannabis approved in NM in the first place? Just because it became legislation under a Democrat doesn't mean that only democrats support the program. Many of the orginal legislators that signed the Lynn & Erin Compassionate Use Act are still in office. Just as Martinez has not made our program an issue as everyone feared, I don't believe having a Republican majority will adversely effect it either.

Maybe I am naive, but I think the only thing we have to worry about is whether or not the 23 producers will be able to keep up with demand as the patient numbers increase because I don't see any new producers being added anytime soon. There may be a push for an increase in the plant numbers, but I don't see that happening either. As the producers gain experience, the yields per plant will also improve. We all just need to give this program time to grow into itself. It took CA 15 years to get where it is today and now the feds are cracking down because there are no controls. I would prefer the feds stay away from NM.

I will contact my representatives asking them to protect our program and to allow DOH to retain any and all monies collected in order to properly administer the program.

I am not sure that the DPA agenda is mine. Total legalization will get here eventually (like once all 50 states have a medical cannabis program), we all just need to be patient. We must take baby steps before we can learn to run. Pushing for full legalization just sends the wrong message and I don't think those DC representatives in the House or the Senate want to admit the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. What we need is a new President who supports us and who will direct the DEA to reschedule cannabis on the Controlled Substance list. Is cannabis really on the same level as or worse than heroin or cocaine? Give me a break!

Thanks for that info RG.Now come on now CFO" What we need is a new President " I don't think any republican running would b any better.What would be best is that cannabis to changed to a class 2 drug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfonso2002

Thanks for that info RG.Now come on now CFO" What we need is a new President " I don't think any republican running would b any better.What would be best is that cannabis to changed to a class 2 drug.

---

I think I said that too. :)

LOL

Thanks CFO for your commitment to call your legislator - that is the most important thing any of us can do. As for the politics, I'll admit that I am a proud Independent and I agree that Gary Johnson would probably be a better choice for president. Go Gary! Meantime, the fact is that Democrats carried this bill through the legislature and continue to be the stronger base of support for our program. And this program would not even exist if not for the efforts of one specific woman who ran the DPA and made cannabis therapy her absolute priority. Those are just the facts. Many of my colleagues in this industry are proud Republicans and they are the ones that I am imploring to make some noise. Democrats or Republicans, we all support our returning veterans of war and this program has proved itself to be extremely beneficial to many who suffer from PTSD. We need to put politics aside and work together to garner more support to protect this program from people like Jim Smith and other ultra conservatives who see this medical program as some sort of threat.

Not only should this program be available to returning vets, but it should also be permitted for those currently serving. Too many soldiers are killed in drunk driving accidents. Some of the soldiers turn to the bottle after losing a comrade. Then they drive drunk. If they could substitute cannabis for alcohol there would be less drunk driving deaths. Alcohol and tobacco have killed infinitely more than cannabis ever has or ever will. Before anyone says it....I know....there has only been one reported death associated with cannabis and that was actually from mold spores. So, my statement is still true. The misconception that we are all just "pot heads and want to get high" needs to be changed. I know a few of the producers and I think there should be a group photo showing the public "the faces of the industry". People would be surprised to find a typical business person and not a bunch of "pot heads". Same for the patients....has the DOH ever put together statistics indicating the average age of the NM MCP patient? I will bet the average age is in the 50s. Len has been in the papers a few times....does he look like a "pot head"? Call your local legislators, tell them to keep our program safe. I need to check current proposed bills....is Mr. Smith at it again this session? I thought he backed off last year after getting some education about the program.

Regarding the military, (I spent 21 years in the Army, two of them in Vietnam, so I think I know a little something about the military), they do discourage and educate against alcohol as well as weed and hard drugs. I well remember when the Army started testing for weed in the early 80s. Prior to that they tested only for barbiturates and amphetamines. Weed use was widespread, and didn't always result in good things. The military was correct to get the situation under control through testing and non-judicial discharges. We've got to remember that most people in the military are young people, many are just teenagers. They need a controlled environment. Their families back home will not stand for an environment full of drugs and a culture of drug use. Say what we will about weed, there is a general perception that people who use weed are not playing with full decks of cards. Right or wrong, we have to deal with that perception.

Weed is often depicted as a superior choice between it and alcohol, and we know that that is not just a myth, but actually true. Weed is safer, and even good for you if you don't abuse it. But most non-users, and even a lot of former users (Pres. Obama for one) don't think it is a good thing to promote in the culture, even as a substitute for liquor.

Unfortunately, many people combine weed with liquor. I've known many people over the years who don't shun liquor just because weed is superior, but grow to enjoy the extra kick that comes with combining the two. Because of these things, but especially because of the general perception that stoners are kinda dumb, I wouldn't be too optimistic about legalization or a wildfire spread of medical laws among the states. In fact, I expect that we will have to fight tooth-and-nail to keep what we have.

I do often contact our reps here in NM and in DC to push for legalization. We are going to have to hang together to fight the inevitable reversals that are probably just around the corner. The push for repeal won't be just a GOP effort. Lots of Democrats oppose legal weed.

Article in today's NY Times about the legalization scene:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us...el.html?ref=us

Welcome Jackson. Awesome news! I will keep an eye out for it and see if I can help in any way.

But Welcome!!!

Welcome one and all. Look forward to reading your posts.

Nice to hear that there is intrest in using hemp in so many ways.The plant of many wonders will show it's colors. We have been so mislead that most people just can't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfonso2002

Thanks for that info RG.Now come on now CFO" What we need is a new President " I don't think any republican running would b any better.What would be best is that cannabis to changed to a class 2 drug.

---

Ron Paul would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynold Greenleaf

Thanks CFO for your commitment to call your legislator - that is the most important thing any of us can do. As for the politics, I'll admit that I am a proud Independent and I agree that Gary Johnson would probably be a better choice for president. Go Gary! Meantime, the fact is that Democrats carried this bill through the legislature and continue to be the stronger base of support for our program. And this program would not even exist if not for the efforts of one specific woman who ran the DPA and made cannabis therapy her absolute priority. Those are just the facts. Many of my colleagues in this industry are proud Republicans and they are the ones that I am imploring to make some noise. Democrats or Republicans, we all support our returning veterans of war and this program has proved itself to be extremely beneficial to many who suffer from PTSD. We need to put politics aside and work together to garner more support to protect this program from people like Jim Smith and other ultra conservatives who see this medical program as some sort of threat.

---

Gary Johnson lost my support when he voted for Susana Martinez.

Ron Paul isn't really a repub. He'll never be president, and unfortunately he isn't a very good promoter of reform of the marijuana laws. Most people think he's just a daffy old man. I'm afraid Gov Johnson has a similar problem. Whenever he gets on camera he seems stunned. My guess is that people think he's high on weed.

Even if one of these two got elected pres, they would find a long long road to legalization. Laws are passed only by Congress. We know there are several bills sitting on the table in the House to reform the weed laws. They aren't going anywhere, because the legislators are afraid of the blowback from the public. The public is split about 50-50. If there was any kind of misstep, a Congressman or president could find himself in a firestorm of public outcry. Remember how Clinton came in in 92 singing about ending military's ban on homosexuals? That was his first project, and it caused a huge uproar in Congress and the public that led to don't-ask-don't-tell and an educational lesson for the new president. He thought it would sail right on through.

I remember sitting in a bunker in Vietnam in 1969 and hearing one of my friends say he was certain weed would be legal within five years. NOt only did that not happen, but the weed laws got even worse after that. So I say, don't be too hard on pres. Obama. He will act when the time is right. I wouldn't expect any changes before his reelection, once pressure is off. For him to do something like this now, with so little to gain and so much to lose, would be insane. He might pick up a few votes, but Romney and the other GOPs would howl like wolves. Moreover, a large failure like that would set the legalization movement back 30 years. We need to be smart.

allwx I agree with you totally.

Emailed every one!!!

Same here. I may write a few actual letters tomorrow. I wish I'd known about the meeting earlier. I might've gone. I guess I should pay closer attention to the goings-on up in Santa Fe.

Gary Johnson isn't a republican.I don't think you understand what a real Republican is......Ron Paul is a true Constitutionalist Republican,not a neoCon like these current pretenders.Ron will "never be President" because the controlled media has convinced you and others that he won't,so you won't vote for him like a good sheep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allwx

Ron Paul isn't really a repub. He'll never be president, and unfortunately he isn't a very good promoter of reform of the marijuana laws. Most people think he's just a daffy old man. I'm afraid Gov Johnson has a similar problem. Whenever he gets on camera he seems stunned. My guess is that people think he's high on weed.

Even if one of these two got elected pres, they would find a long long road to legalization. Laws are passed only by Congress. We know there are several bills sitting on the table in the House to reform the weed laws. They aren't going anywhere, because the legislators are afraid of the blowback from the public. The public is split about 50-50. If there was any kind of misstep, a Congressman or president could find himself in a firestorm of public outcry. Remember how Clinton came in in 92 singing about ending military's ban on homosexuals? That was his first project, and it caused a huge uproar in Congress and the public that led to don't-ask-don't-tell and an educational lesson for the new president. He thought it would sail right on through.

I remember sitting in a bunker in Vietnam in 1969 and hearing one of my friends say he was certain weed would be legal within five years. NOt only did that not happen, but the weed laws got even worse after that. So I say, don't be too hard on pres. Obama. He will act when the time is right. I wouldn't expect any changes before his reelection, once pressure is off. For him to do something like this now, with so little to gain and so much to lose, would be insane. He might pick up a few votes, but Romney and the other GOPs would howl like wolves. Moreover, a large failure like that would set the legalization movement back 30 years. We need to be smart.

---

Actually, I form all my own opinions. I've watched the Paul People for years. They look good on the surface, but once a thoughtful examination is done, it becomes apparent that their libertarian program represents nothing more (or less) than a return to an earlier age. Say, around 1830. If that is your idea of a good thing, then by all means waste your vote on Ron Paul. Most people, and by most I mean a substantial majority of adult American people, are progressive. In 1830 there was barely a telegraph, steam engines were new technology, the Federal Gov't didn't do very much except maintain the military and keep the states from going to war with each other. You may've noticed, times have changed.

And they aren't going to change back. And that's why I know that Ron Paul will never be President. And don't forget, he named his son Rand. As in, Ayn Rand. Anyone who still admires Ayn Rand into his seventies has probably got something loose somewhere. And I don't mean to insult you, but you DID come at me with the Sheeple thing. I'd suggest a little less inflammation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManOBuds

Gary Johnson isn't a republican.I don't think you understand what a real Republican is......Ron Paul is a true Constitutionalist Republican,not a neoCon like these current pretenders.Ron will "never be President" because the controlled media has convinced you and others that he won't,so you won't vote for him like a good sheep.

---

I'm sorry bit I must respectfully but completely and totally disagree. I'm from the 14th congressional district of Texas originally and still have family residing there , despite getting re-elected there's not a great many folks in Galveston or Victoria etc. real happy with the man , the really wish he WOULD go to DC and leave folks in Texas alone.

Yes the man has some decent rhetoric what with rehashed Spooner and Rothbard and Plagiarised Von Mises and Rockwell , however he is not a Libertarian to any who have explored beyond the Cliff's notes of Libertarianism.

What he IS , is the last stop on the FauX Freedom road before the complete installation of corpotacracy and Fascism , one only needs to explore his connections in the past with both the John Birch Society and the Christian Reconstructionist/Domionist movement for alarm bells to ring.

Then we have the troubling racial stances , which though denied have been quite common knowledge in many parts of the South for a couple of decades or better. And his stance on abortion is more than a bit hypocritical.

The kicker? He's been feeding at the same hog trough as the others for 24 years. And nope I don't have any use whatsoever for a single one of the other available candidates on either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allwx

As in, Ayn Rand. Anyone who still admires Ayn Rand into his seventies has probably got something loose somewhere. .

---

Biggest fake and hypocritical megalomaniac connected with Libertarianism , and a tyrant to those with her cultic grip to boot. A thoroughly disgusting excuse for an example of socalled humanity.

Although I haven't studied this issue deeply, I suspect the MAIN reason Ron Paul is popular with a few younger people is his stance on drug legalization. Bluenote puts the right words on this: Faux Freedom. It is a laudable position to take, to say that free people have the god-given right to eat and drink and smoke what they want to. But that isn't a workable solution to crackheads who break heads to get what they need. Drug legalization, I suspect, is Paul's manner of keeping the young people who adore him tuned in. I doubt that many of them are aware of the rest of his program. As Bluenote mentions, there is a wide range of objectionable ideas swimming around in that septuagenarian mind of his, most of them stolen from other "thinkers" like Ayn Rand, who's philosophy is often summed up as Survival of the Fittest. Most weed people I know are progressive people, not Objectivist animals, and most have probably never heard of Ayn Rand.

There is no possible way that drugs are going to be legalized in the U.S. and that includes cannabis. The sooner people come to grips with this fact of life, the sooner we can move towards real reform of the laws. Even so mild a "drug" as cannabis could never be comprehensively legalized across this American nation, any more than alcohol, or heroin, or meth could. Maybe these young Paul People expect that weed will become as legal as drinking water. I'd like to get a little of what they've been smoking. None of these drugs, including cannabis, is associated with high-level human behaviors. A brief tour of the marijuana forums reveals people who can barely write, and they seem proud of it. They spell words that look like gang graffitti, and make about as much sense. This isn't putting the best foot forward. The other half of America that opposes legal weed will not tolerate zombied young Paul People wandering their streets with blunts hanging out of their mouths. I'm just saying.

To work for real reform of the marijuana laws, I believe it is important to distinguish between weed and the other drugs. The only reason Weed got put on Sched 1 is because of the rightwing hatred for hippies back in the day. That is what needs to change, and nothing much more. Move weed off Sched 1 so that states can comfortably regulate it themselves. Leave the the very harmful drugs where they are, and keep enforcement going against them. It is very possible, even probable, that Obama will make this move next year, or once the political environment will support it. So, ManOBuds, I hope you won't waste your vote on a dead-end like Ron Paul. The only viable path towards cannabis reform is Obama.

"The only viable path towards cannabis reform is Obama." Allwx, Are you kidding me? If this were the case, then why hasn't he done something about this issue before now? Why does he allow the DOJ to continue with their crackdown in CA, CO and other MMJ states? If it weren't for the plant limits in place, they would be cracking down on NM. Those producers that choose to expand to the 150 plant limit are risking a mandatory jail sentence of 5 years! For providing medicine to patients. Few candidates have ever kept their campaign promises. After being elected Obama told the DOJ there were better uses for their resources than going after the MMJ community. If people like Steve DeAngelo and Harborside would stay off the boob tube, maybe the DOJ would leave the dispensaries alone too. The "nonprofit" dispensaries in CA are making a fortune....on the backs of ill people. Everyone is entitled to reasonable compensation, but the millions being made in CA is obscene.

Many of us are one issue voters. Whatever effects us personally and which candidate speaks in agreement to what we want or need....that is the candidate that will receive our vote. Obama spoke of "change". Well, we got change allright....in our pockets. Hopefully, the American voters will wake up and see what I have said all along....Obama is another Carter and the only reason he was elected was because the liberal media convinced the voters that the Republicans were evil and they had had control for too many years and it was time for a Democrat. That Bush 'stole' the election and even though he was voted in for a second term, he was evil incarnate. We no longer have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". We have elected orators who speak pretty but haven't got a clue as to what their constituents really want or don't care. When thousands of people sign a petition asking that cannabis be legalized similar to alcohol, or to reschedule, and the White House comes back with the same old rhetoric, it proves to me they are liars and really do not care what the PEOPLE want.

We need to continue to educate as many people as we can about the medicinal benefits of cannabis and perhaps once every state has a medical cannabis program, the feds will finally reschedule. No matter what liar...oops...party, is in the oval office. I pray that a compassionate candidate makes it to the White House...regardless of his party affiliation.

If every representative and senator had at least one family member that was so ill they needed the benefits of cannabis this would be a nonissue. Every person alive on 09/11 could have PTSD and qualify for the program in NM.

There was so much negative information regarding Susana Martinez and what she would "do" to our program. All seems to be continuing on the status quo thus far. I expect it will continue the same for the duration of her term.

CFO... good morning.

Why hasn't O done anything before now? He's done a lot. Obama promised during the 08 campaign to stop the federal persecution Patients. Notice, the difference between a Patient, and a Producer. There is a difference. Remember, the President is not a King or a dictator. He's one part of a multi-dimensional gov't system that includes three equal branches at the Fed level, and then 50 states, each with its own gov't set-up and particular political situation. Presidents are rarely able to do anything by decree, without considering various political calculations, as witness the recent struggle over birth control.

The Administration thru the Justice Dept issued guidelines that suggested to the Federal Attorneys in the states, not to chase sick people, as long as they are in conformity with state laws. This is a middle position that has been acceptable to everyone. It has not been overly criticized by the GOPs. As time went by, there developed in some states a new situation, in which large, commercial-type grow operations were being established. The Administration is chasing those commercial operations, not patients. We may argue about the wisdom of this. Personally I prefer a situation where sick people can grow their own, or have others help them grow, and people be allowed to exchange medicine among themselves without being hassled. I don't prefer a situation where commercial operations grab control of production and distribution, and I'll bet you wouldn't like that to develop, either. You made reference to this profiteering, which you call "obscene" and I totally agree. Again, Obama's Justice Dept is NOT chasing patients. They are chasing large distribution operations that make millions of $ off sick people. Some weed people like the idea of corporate production and sale of weed products, I personally hate the idea of that, and support any effort to keep, say, the tobacco companies from getting a controlling monopoly on weed as it becomes more legal. I'm not suggesting that this is the intent of the Fed crackdown on the big growers, but it does help us in that direction, to keep weed a home-based industry.

You suggest you are a single-issue voter. That's too bad. Single issue voters rarely make enlightened decisions about candidates in a complex world. Why would anyone support a candidate on the issue of weed legalization (whatever THAT means) alone without considering also that the guy is a racist, xenophobic crank?

Re Ms Marinez. You correctly note that she's had relatively small impact on the MM program. Why? Because there is little support either in the legislature or among the population to do what she'd like to do. We stay active, and in touch with her office and through our legislators, and she gets the message. We can get along with any decent politician, as long as we remember how they respond to us. Plus, legalization is a biparitsan issue. THere are millions of GOPs who like the idea of legalization. Ms Martinez will do what keeps her in office and promotes her future political career. Our job is to help her to understand that being opposed to legalization is not the best way to achieve success.

Back to Obama for a moment, to close this out. Pres. Obama apparently does not favor the legalization of weed. Maybe this attitude of his is a product of his own experiences with weed, as well as other drugs, and the people who use them recreationally. I don't know. But I do know that he is going to respond to political pressure, as he did in calling the Fed dogs off of patients. None of the GOPs is anything but utterly opposed to loosening up weed laws. I don't include Paul because he isn't really a GOP. So, think about how this might play out. If enough people vote single issue for Paul, more likely we end up with one of the GOPs in the WH. If having a religious zealot GOP in there is better in your mind than having a reasonable pol like Obama who can be persuaded our way, then by all means vote single issue Paul. But, if you want things to move in our direction, then Obama is the only viable choice.

There. I said it again. Obama: the only viable choice towards legalization/reform in the years ahead. It seems to me that if you truly are single-issue on weed reform, then there is no other intelligent choice than Barack Obama.

Morning, to you too.

Pointing out that there are a lot of single-issue voters in our populace does not mean that I am one. There are too many issues on the table that I don't have the time to list them regarding Obama or the other candidates. I will go back to my original comments and restate that we need to clean house in all branches of the government where it can be done. Supreme Court we have no control over. Congress and the White House...you bet. Our entire political system needs an overhaul and not just because of their stance regarding cannabis.

I too would love to see everyone be able to grow their own. Unfortunately, not everyone can do so. And to grow at medicinal grade by an individual would take a lot of time. Having small producers who can focus on the quality of their meds makes more sense to me than these large commercial producers in some of the other states.

I believe we need to focus our energies on rescheduling rather than trying to elect compassionate legislators....seeing as how once elected most of them change their positions anyway.

I totally agree wit ya! Rescheduling is the only thing that CAN be done in the short term. Once that is done, then the states can start to regulate it more the way they want to. Also, Obama needs legislation. Presidents under the Constitution are obligated to enforce the laws that Congress passes. They aren't allowed to pick and choose, though they sometimes get away with a little picking and choosing, depending on political atmospheres.

I truly expect that Obama will work to reschedule after the election. But it won't be easy. He can't just pop up and say, "Reschedule it." He will have to deal with blowback from various quarters, including some in his own administration. The worst thing that could happen is if, like what happened to Clinton when he tried to end the prohibition on gays in the military, there was significant blowback that caused a big ruckus. We must avoid that at all costs, because it would set back legalization by years. We can expect that certain very holy people will rise up and oppose rescheduling as giving in to Satan. We got to help give Obama political cover, by staying very involved and activated, like I know you are.

I know what you mean about sick people being unable to grow their own. Wife and I are both on the program, but she is much sicker than I am, there is NO WAY she could do any of the very physical work that is involved. What I hope we would change is the prohibition on transferring among patients. That makes no sense to me. Those of us who grow more than we need could share with those who can't grow at all. I love to share!

Peace, brother.

Short but interesting article in today's Huffington Post by Jorge Cervantes:

Jorge Cervantes: Mary Jane, You've Come a Long Way Baby

I didn't realize Jorge was a real person named Jorge. A couple of years ago I found material on other internet sites that matched nearly word-for-word the paragraphs from Cervantes' magnum opus, only under the name of a different author, and with references to cannabis scrubbed out and replaced with those of other plants. Because of this I assumed that Jorge Cervantes is a pen name, which would be a reasonable assumption because of the questionable legal position anyone in 1983 put themselves in by writing a book about marijuana cultivation. When I found the other book, identical in every meaningful way to Cervantes' book, I figured that older material previously published had been rehashed for marijuana and put into another book designed to appeal to weed growers.

Now, we have a short op-ed in a national web paper under the name, and with a photograph, of Jorge himself. I'm surprised.