Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, October 3, 2013

Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature endorses medical marijuana

October 3, 2013

Advertisement

— The Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature, a senior-citizen advisory group, has approved a resolution in support of medical marijuana.

Jim Snyder, 80, president of the Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature, seated in the Kansas House chamber after the group's meeting. The Silver-Haired Legislature approved a resolution supporting medical marijuana.

Jim Snyder, 80, president of the Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature, seated in the Kansas House chamber after the group's meeting. The Silver-Haired Legislature approved a resolution supporting medical marijuana.

"We know it's controversial, but so is getting up in the morning when you get to be our age," said Jim Snyder, the 80-year-old president of the group.

The non-binding recommendation, which supports Senate Bill 9, will be forwarded to the Kansas Legislature.

SB 9 would allow people who have certain medical conditions, such as cancer, and have received recommendations from their physicians to use marijuana. It would also have the state regulate and license medical marijuana centers to provide the drug.

Similar measures have been filed in the Kansas Legislature over the past several years, but the issue has gained no traction.

Snyder, of Topeka, said Thursday that may change because of the Silver-Haired Legislature's endorsement and the increasing number of states that have approved medical marijuana.

He said older people are simply looking for ways to manage pain."When you get old, you get creaky, and you hurt," he said. And Snyder said sometimes prescription drugs that are currently available are too powerful.

Earlier, the Silver-Haired Legislature heard from Jack Cole, who leads the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Cole, a retired undercover narcotics officer from New Jersey, told the group legalizing drugs could actually reduce crime and violence and not increase use.

The Silver-Haired Legislature is a unicameral legislative body consisting of 125 representatives. All members of the group are age 60 or older. Members submit forms to be candidates and are elected during elections run by local area agencies on aging. The group's recommendations are then forwarded to the Kansas Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback.

The group provides an educational experience in the political process and an opportunity to identify policy concerns for Kansas’ older adults.

Comments

Leslie Swearingen 1 year ago

This is just common sense. Before I started getting cortisol shots in my knee the pain was so bad I had to take prescription pain pills and while I am grateful I had them they made me sleepy and out of it. Now I just need Bayer aspirin which is so much better. Old people are looking for ways to ease the pain so they can get around and do things. No drug or medicinal plant is inherently evil. Like everything else it all depends on what the person has in mind.

5

FarleyM 1 year ago

State legalization of marijuana is a federal offense. But do not be alarmed. Obama used to be a Choom gang leader in Hawaii. He will not have Holder prosecute states that legalize marijuana. Unless, they require a photo ID to purchase it.

1

nick_s 1 year ago

What? I thought you right-wingers were against anything federal...unless it supports your views? From a right-wing stand point, shouldnt states be allowed to set up their own marijuana laws that trump any federal law?

9

Liberty275 1 year ago

From a libertarian standpoint, there should be no federal law regarding marijuana to trump. The current federal legislation is based on fraudulent use of the commerce clause.

7

nick_s 1 year ago

But you do acknowledge that those laws were in place long before Obama & he is not the one to blame for the current federal legislation?

4

Liberty275 1 year ago

Actually, the Obama administration has put in place a "hands-off" policy regarding small amounts in states where it is legal. Not only is he not to blame for the law, he is pulling back the feds and letting the state laws take precedence in most cases. Kudos to him.

6

FarleyM 1 year ago

nick, you mean like states being allowed to set up things like voter ID pics and immigration? Sure why not. States are suppose to trump Feds. Too bad it's not working that way any more. It must not be working any more because of the uncivil climate from accusations of guns being held to heads and no negotiations attitude from the reigning power to be.

Also, I think stoned old people is probably a good way for them to secede from current realities of days gone by.

0

nick_s 1 year ago

Thats exactly what I mean. You cant have it both ways. You seem inherently contradictory in your desire for Federal law to prevail in one instance, but not in another. Im not Democrat or Republican, but somewhere right in the middle, & it is old to hear the same rhetoric from both sides. If I had to draw a line in the sand however, Id say the Republicans seem to be doing exactly what you describe above.

0

FarleyM 1 year ago

I am FarleyM. Nothing more nothing less. People in the government, that think they are all knowing, need to stay out of mine and yours business.

The original comment 18 hrs ago, was a tongue in cheek attempt at levity illustrating Obama's cherry picking to prosecute States because of his rampant ideological dictates.

Fair enough?

0

nick_s 1 year ago

It is fair enough, however I dont believe Obama is the first to "cherry pick." I believe that it goes both ways for as long there is written history. It is human nature to be somewhat self serving, even if completely innocent. It is also so rampant in politics I find it difficult to point the finger one way so vehemently w/complete disregard for the transgressions of the other side, thats it. Fair enough?

1

FarleyM 1 year ago

You may be reading too much "vehemently" in. Current, hijacking of my medical care is not fair enough and none of his vehement business. Who does this dude think he is?

SCOTUS got it wrong on Obamacare like they did on Dred Scott and imprisoning Japanese Americans in concentration camps under FDR.

0

Duncan20903 1 year ago

Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) is more relevant because that's the controlling legal authority where the SCOTUS says that the Federal Government can "regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." [quote from Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)]

It's amazing how many people think that the Constitution says anything other that the specific ennumerated powers of the Federal government can "trump" State law. When the heck did the law become a game of cards?

A couple of other snippets from Justice Thomas' dissent in Raich:

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

and

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
1

jafs 1 year ago

What's your source for the idea that "states are suppose (sic) to trump feds"?

The supremacy clause in the Constitution says precisely the reverse, that federal law is the law of the whole country, and that it trumps state laws that conflict with federal.

3

Duncan20903 1 year ago

jafs, you've misread the Supremacy clause, that isn't what it says. Why is it that you people think it's all or nothing? The Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

The key phrase is "in pursuance thereof." The Supremacy clause is a limiting clause. There are times when Federal law does "trump" State law but it most certainly does not give Federal law supremacy over State law in every case. Anyone that argues all or nothing regardless of which side they're arguing in favor of, is just plain wrong.

0

jafs 1 year ago

I don't see how "in pursuance thereof" does what you claim.

Give me an example of how a state law can prevail if in conflict with federal law.

And, who exactly are "you people"?

1

Duncan20903 1 year ago

It's just plain absurd to believe that the States are violating Federal law by ending the stupidity of cannabis prohibition. This issue has already been in front of the SCOTUS several times and it's clear that anyone who thinks that the Feds can dictate State law is living in fantasy land.

See Gambino v United States of America, 275 U.S. 310 (1927)

City of Garden Grove v Felix Kha, 157 Cal. App. 4th 355; 68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656 (2007)

County of San Diego v San Diego NORML 165 Cal. App. 4th 798; 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461 (2009)

The one and only thing that the States can't do is to prevent the Feds from enforcing their law using their resources, their agents, and their Courts.

It makes me weep that there are so many people so very ignorant of our system of dual sovereignty that there are people that actually believe that the Feds can make the States do what they want.

Still craving the taste of your foot FarleyM? Then please explain why you think that the evasion of Federal income tax is perfectly legal as far as the criminal code of the State of [all 50 States + D.C.] is concerned.

Do waste too much time gazing at the horizon expecting the Federal cavalry to ride in and strike down the laws which you don't like, because they're not coming.

1

jafs 1 year ago

Nobody says that states are "violating federal law".

They say that federal laws about marijuana are "supreme", and thus use of marijuana in states that allow it is still a federal crime, and that states that think they can simply ignore federal law by passing laws in conflict with it and prevail are wrong.

And, the feds absolutely can "make" judges in every state abide by federal law - that's right there in the supremacy clause, as you've provided - "judges in every state shall be bound thereby,...".

1

Liberty275 1 year ago

That is interesting. If I were a county or state judge and I was told by anyone in the federal government I had to enforce federal law, I would dismiss the case.

0

jafs 1 year ago

Well, I suspect you'd be violating the constitution, then.

Although I'm not sure that "being bound by" and "having to enforce" are exactly the same things.

1

Liberty275 1 year ago

Does the Constitution say charges cannot be dismissed by a judge?

0

jafs 1 year ago

It says exactly what Duncan posted, that "judges in every state shall be bound" by federal law.

What that means precisely I don't know, perhaps a lawyer or law student would know more.

But, on the face of it, it suggests that state judges (or more local ones) can't substitute their own ideas (or the laws of their state if in conflict with federal laws), but must follow federal laws.

A little quick research shows that the SC has held that the feds can't make states enforce federal laws. So, I wonder what "shall be bound" means - perhaps it means that they can't enforce state laws which conflict with federal ones?

The SC found there was no specific language in the constitution about the issue, and used historical practice and other things to decide as they did.

0

Liberty275 1 year ago

By bound, I think that means states are bound by protections for citizens in the constitution and federal statues. That would be my definition in this context.

I can see why the word "bound" could allow you to think the feds could make states enforce federal law. It makes sense. You aren't wrong, you just disagree with the SCOTUS about a ruling. Welcome to the club.

"But, on the face of it, it suggests that state judges (or more local ones) can't substitute their own ideas"

OK, can a federal judge dismiss a case?

As for court procedure, I really don't know, and that doesn't matter. I'd dismiss the case whether I was allowed to or not.

0

jafs 1 year ago

I didn't think that, I wasn't sure what it meant exactly.

It seems unclear from just the constitution, which always makes things difficult.

But, clearly, state judges are bound by federal laws in some way, even if what that is is a bit murky.

Any judge can dismiss a case, as far as I know. And, then we have appeals, etc. If a state judge acted to enforce a state law that conflicted with federal laws, I imagine they'd lose on appeal, and certainly if it went to the SC.

0

eduardo73 1 year ago

I notice you post on this topic often through many media outlets, and your selfless dedication to the cause is a major reason for the recent shift our way in public opinion. Thank you, and keep up the good work.

0

jafs 1 year ago

Thanks.

But if that's for me, I only post on this site - must be somebody else out there who thinks like I do :-)

Every once in a while, I might make a comment on yahoo, but not about this topic that I recall.

0

eduardo73 1 year ago

I was actually thanking Duncan20903. I think you and I disagree, but I do appreciate your civil approach to the discussion. The reply mechanism on this comment board leaves a lot to be desired, though it's possible I may have mistakenly hit the wrong "reply" button. In any event, in the future I will designate my replies by name.

0

eduardo73 1 year ago

 Much thanks to the Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature for their endorsement of SB 9, a bill which would provide compassionate relief to thousands of Kansans. 
 The main obstacle to moving the bill forward is the obstructionist tactics of State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook (R-10th District), who chairs the Senate's Public Health and Welfare Committee, and refuses to let the bill move forward on ideological grounds. Pilcher-Cook opposes compassionate relief on principle(?). My understanding is that the far-right robot can't be replaced with an actual human being until 2016. I certainly hope that, when that time comes, the voters in the 10th District will have the decency and common sense to call her home and replace her with somebody who actually has a functional moral compass. 
 Until then, sick Kansans who need cannabis as medicine should be aware that cultivating 4 or fewer plants is a misdemeanor for which most Kansas judges will grant probation. Not that that they are required to, but that is the informal standard throughout the state. DO NOT EXCEED 4 PLANTS, unless you're willing to die in prison. I don't advocate breaking the law, but sick folks simply need to weigh the pros and cons of civil disobedience vs. the "wasting syndrome" of cancer, AIDS, and other debilitating conditions. Sad but true.
2

eduardo73 1 year ago

I need to correct the second-to-last sentence of my original post. I do advocate ignoring the MJ laws, period. Just be aware of the potential legal consequences, and be discreet.

1

1 year ago

Crap, yet another reason to mourn that I wasn't born with a green thumb...

2

smileydog 1 year ago

How many have pony tails to go with their silver hair?

0

bad_dog 1 year ago

How many opposed to the proposed legislation have red necks?

5

gatekeeper 1 year ago

My 79 year old mother who suffers from crippling arthritis and watched her daughter die from cancer and suffer from it for months stands proudly for legalization. She's a little church lady that's never smoked anything, rarely ever drank (probably nothing in the last 10 years) and hated hippies, back in the day.

Hippies aren't driving this. People with common sense are.

3

eddieboy 1 year ago

marijuana usage has remained fairly steady (or declined) in recent years in younger age groups. By far, the fastest rate of increased usage is in the 60+ age group. This is not anecdotal, but based on national studies. Although, I do personally have three acquaintances who have had elderly (over 75) relatives request marijuana from them in the last couple of years. In the most recent example, a young man's grandma (80+ years old) requested that he find her some marijuana because her friends were talking about it's pain killing qualities. She is in much pain and welcoming death. She tried it and said she had not been so happy and pain free in years. She had never smoked marijuana before. She's dreading her hair now and listens to Bob Marley nonstop (no, just kidding). Cannabis (as hemp, feedstock, oil, medicine...) is the most widely used and most valuable plant throughout human history (how many of our president's grew it)? This current prohibition of such a valuable plant will be viewed by history as a blip of insanity, much as alcohol prohibition is now viewed.

2

blindrabbit 1 year ago

The silverheads have it right (or should I say correct) so as to not associate with the right wing T- Baggers. Regardless if medical marijuana makes sense, remember with Brownie and his C-Street mentality, If God ordains that you should "hurt" from old age pains, etc., then by-God you should hurt. None of that enlightened nonsense, and by the way no blasphemy either.

6

stevieboy 1 year ago

What a sad life you must live!

0

Liberty275 1 year ago

Very nicely done!. You must have studied journalism at KU, given your beautiful prose.

Sarcasm doesn't have to be nasty. That was just mean.

0

Dan Eyler 1 year ago

Stop wasting time on medical use and move to a state referendum on legalization.

4

jafs 1 year ago

Not in KS.

That will never pass.

0

gatekeeper 1 year ago

It will eventually once the other states legalize it.

1

jafs 1 year ago

Maybe.

But, there's no guarantee of that, and no particular reason why KS would have to do that.

0

nick_s 1 year ago

And if KS's stance w/Prohibition of alcohol stands as any barometer, it will not go over so easily.

0

gatekeeper 1 year ago

If all the states around us legalize it, KS will either have to have so many more cops to try to enforce the rules because tons of people will be going to other states and bringing it back across state lines or will have to allow it. There's already issues with this because of CO. They can't set up checkpoints and search everyone and we don't have the money to pay for that, or more prisons to hold all the pot heads.

I'm from KC. Just imagine when MO legalizes it (it will happen there in the not so distant future). There is no way KS can enfore anything along the border in KC.

0

nick_s 1 year ago

I wholly agree with you, however logic & reason are not bright points in this state. I can see it being fought tooth & nail, regardless of how idiotic & futile a good deal of us believe it to be. I just cant imagine the conservatives in this state would simply roll over on this one.

0

eduardo73 1 year ago

@jafs:

Kansas might not legalize any time soon, but I think it could happen sooner than many people think. Here's why:

First, I'll concede that the legislature doesn't have the stomach for it. I also realize that we don't have the freedom to control our collective destiny through the ballot initiative process enjoyed by those living in the free(er) states. However, grassroots Republicans are sharply divided between libertarians and social conservatives. I can't emphasize that point enough. To avoid costly and bitter battles between the two factions in the primary elections, enough from both sides of the GOP/GOT will likely realize that it's in their own best interest to drop the political hot potato and let the voters decide. The best way to do that, then, is to finally legalize the ballot initiative process. If/when that happens, it's anybody's guess what voters will do. My take is that SE Kansas libertarians, western Kansas agricultural interests, Wyandotte and Sedgwick countie, and a bare majority of Johnson Countians just might be enough to come up with enough votes to push it through.

0

Onatop 1 year ago

In my view - any types of illegal drugs for medical use - is a lame excuse for using them. If Kansas Legislature Approves this - it will be a said day of the history of Kansas. Why cannot Kansas be like a leader to show other state's - how to do business against illegal drugs - not to follow as everyone else it. This is like be child or having child behavior.

In America today - we live in a tainted society - drugs ( people whom think they are OK use ) , crime - etc. I makes me ill how society is today.

0

jonas_opines 1 year ago

"In my view - any types of illegal drugs for medical use - is a lame excuse for using them."

That's why they're trying to make this a Legal drug for this use. Then that wouldn't be an issue, would it? Haha.

Anyway, I note that in a previous thread, according to your profile, you believe that users of drugs are mentally ill and deserve to be killed. Which means either trolling, or worse if you're serious.

5

PhilChiles 1 year ago

I've got bad news for you, onatop, marijuana is pretty easy to find already. Prohibition hasn't worked at all. Additionally, in terms of how dangerous it is, I'd rank it somewhere in between ibuprofen and neosporin.

7

Duncan20903 1 year ago

It's not even arguable that ibuprofen is safer than cannabis. "(NSAIDS) "Each year, use of NSAIDs (Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) accounts for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States." (NSAIDs include aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid.) http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.MEW9lAdp.dpuf

While Neosporin is unlikely to directly cause death if used as instructed the overuse of antibiotics has resulted in MRSA and similar anti-biotic resistant germs which most certainly does kill 10s of thousands of people every year.

Even vending machines kill more people every year while cannabis is holding steady at causing 0 deaths since the dawn of recorded history.

2

Liberty275 1 year ago

Acetaminophen is the real killer. Five times the average dose of 1000mg in a day can destroy your liver and put you in a casket. To make things worse, acetaminophen is in lots of OTC medications that aren't marketed specifically for pain.

Be careful with acetaminophen.

0

Duncan20903 1 year ago

Why in the world does anyone think people need to make an excuse, especially for using an efficacious medicine to treat a medical condition?

The only people making excuses are the people who want to keep putting people in jail for something that's none of the Legislature's concern in a free country.

I choose to enjoy cannabis from time to time because it enhances and enriches my life. I don't need to make any steeenking excuses because I'm not your property and it's none of your business.

2

gatekeeper 1 year ago

MJ has been used for THOUSANDS of years. It's commonly found in tombs dating from the time of Christ in Jerusalem. Most likely, Christ used it himself. It's a natural plant, put here by God. Are you saying God messed up?

You would be so surprised to know how many teachers, doctors, lawyers, stay at home moms raising families, pastors, vets, etc.... use it. I can say this as a fact because I know them personally. I've had three doctors in the last 15 years tell me it would solve many issues I have that I can only legally get prescription pills for that have all kinds of bad side effects.

Our founding fathers used it. They were nothing but worthless slackers, weren't they. Ancient Egyptians used it. Total slackers, doing nothing but building pyramids and stuff we can't even figure out how they managed to create them.

So much ignorance on the subject.

3

Cait McKnelly 1 year ago

I have neuropathy (nerve damage) in various parts of my body related to diabetes. It's a very painful condition, chronic and lifelong. Due to differences in state laws, when I lived in TN, I had to go to a mandatory pain management clinic just to get a couple of Percocet a day to deal with the pain. I wasn't the only one. One day I sat in a chair outside of a lab to give my pee sample and looked around me. Every single one of the five people waiting with me were over 60 and using either a walker, a wheelchair or a cane.
How sad is that?

2

gatekeeper 1 year ago

They give my mother butt loads of morphine for her arthritis so she can function. They had no problem getting a little old lady addicted to morphine, but heaven forbid they let her get high to help with the pain. We can't let her drive anymore because of the morphine and she's fallen a couple times (dislocated hip last time) because she gets too groggy and disoriented from the morphine. It's very sad how our older generation is being treated.

0

Sam Crow 1 year ago

"The Silver-Haired Legislature is a unicameral legislative body consisting of 125 representatives."

This article is very poorly written.

And what exactly does this group legislate? Nothing. It is merely an unelected group of volunteers on an advisory panel.

This is a non story.

0

blindrabbit 1 year ago

Onatop: Me guesses you are joking about your comment about Kansas being a leader in anything: By-the-way, what flavor of Kool-Aid do you favor?

2

Onatop 1 year ago

Well I do not drink Kool Aid - sorry - and if you want to know I do not drink - just water , ice tea , milk. You know pot is available to most high school age students - few bad apples who are able to supply - where they get their supply from - every city has a source to have dope imported into it - all who think pot should be legal or use for medical use - should get mentally evaluated - maybe committed even. Yes I am against any type of illegal drug usage - and people selling should be given a death sentence period. This would stop it period. Using marijuana should be a felony crime - I guess alot of people would be in prison. I am proud to be an American - and even more proud to NEVER use ANY types of drugs. Does anyone today have any values or morals ?

0

jafs 1 year ago

Wow.

What about alcohol and cigarettes? Do you feel the same? If not, why not? They're drugs which have negative effects on people if abused. Also, caffeine acts as a drug - if you drink caffeinated iced tea, then you're using a drug.

My values include freedom, and so I support drugs being legal, just as alcohol and cigarettes are. I suppose you think I should be mentally evaluated or committed. It's a good thing you're not in charge of this country, which values freedom of thought and expression.

2

eduardo73 1 year ago

The policy you espouse is already in effect... in Iran, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia, to name a few. On behalf of moral, freedom-loving Americans from coast-to-coast, I invite you to expatriate. We do not want or need you or your ilk in this land of the (almost) free and the home of the brave (who challenge 76 years of government-sponsored terrorism).

4

bad_dog 1 year ago

I just wish really hyperbolic fantasies interspersed with excessive hyphenation was a felony punishable by, oh never mind...

2

Liberty275 1 year ago

How exactly do you come to the conclusion that it is any of your business what other people put into their bodies?

"Does anyone today have any values or morals ?"

I am amoral, but I try to be ethical.

1

FarleyM 1 year ago

Every thing Duncan20903 said, but most IMPORTANTLY, drug companies do not want marijuana legal. It reduces their aspirin sales. Among other pain relief sales.

2

UltimateGrownup 1 year ago

This article is fake. No one has ever heard of the "Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature." When the LJ World acts like they're getting the opinion of a moral decline front group like this, they expose their agenda. Also, the grammar is bad. The word "medicinal" should be in quotation marks, and everyone knows it. Finally, there are scores of analgesics out there and yet, somehow, the one that gets people high and giggly is the only one that, supposedly, is deserving of public policy attention.

0

eduardo73 1 year ago

@UltimateGrownup(?): Your claim of being a grownup is fake. With the exception of young children, almost all educated adults are aware of the Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature. Moral decline front group? The only people laughing harder than I am at your characterization are the old folks, themselves. Marijuana IS medicinal; debate that simple fact with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Finally, many emerging strains of medicinal cannabis are high in CBD and low in THC and don't get anyone high or giggly. Troll somewhere else Sen. Pilcher-Cook.

2

Brian Conrad 1 year ago

Kansas has stronger MANDATORY PRISON pot laws while all around us are legalizing. would you rather have a laid back pot smoker in your community OR thugs from Topeka with guns? zero mandatory sentence for these gun carrying idiots . pull over a guy with ten pounds of unregistered guns ... probation... 1 lb of pot 4 YEARS IN PEN MANDATORY ! **CRAZY** time to LEGALIZE PERIOD !! I am 60 and do not smoke cigs or pot.

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.