An advisory referendum will ask Dane County voters in November whether they think the state should legalize medical marijuana after the County Board voted unanimously to place it on ballots.
The move made the county the state’s first to introduce a medical marijuana resolution. The question would ask: “Should the Wisconsin Legislature enact legislation allowing residents with debilitating medical conditions to acquire and possess marijuana for medical purposes if supported by their physician?”
Sup. John Hendrick of Madison, who introduced the resolution on Thursday, said he was surprised at the board’s unanimous vote but wouldn’t be surprised if the referendum passed by a 70-30 margin or better.
Hendrick said he personally supports the legalization of medical marijuana because he has known people with disabling conditions who have benefited from it. He added he’s aware that some people believe the law is being abused in the 14 states and the District of Columbia, where pot is legally distributed.
The Wisconsin Medical Society tried to get a similar referendum on the ballot eighteen years ago. When the Marijuana Tax Act was railroaded through the House in 1937, the American Medical Association Journal came out in opposition to the Act. The Act created barriers for doctors and patients to hinder prescription of marijuana as a way to full prohibition.
From David Solomon's introduction to the full text of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937:
Physicians who wish to purchase the one-dollar tax stamp so that they might prescribe it for their patients are forced to report such use to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in sworn and attested detail, revealing the name and address of the patient, the nature of his ailment, the dates and amounts prescribed, and so on. If a physician for any reason fails to do so immediately, both he and his patient are liable to imprisonment-and a heavy fine. Obviously, the details of that regulation make it far too risky for anyone to have anything to do with marijuana in any way whatsoever.
Regulations No. 1 was more than an invasion of the traditional right of privacy between patient and physician; it was a hopelessly involved set of rules that were obviously designed not merely to discourage but to prohibit the medical and popular use of marijuana. In addition to the Marihuana Tax Act and Regulations No. 1, the Bureau of Narcotics prepared a standard bill for marihuana that more than forty state legislatures enacted. This bill made possession and use of marihuana illegal per se, and so reinforced the federal act.
Seventy-three years is a long time to wait for justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment