Republicans, particularly Tea Partiers, have been going Cookoo for Christie. And why not — Gov. Chris Christie came into office this year and immediately began to deliver on his campaign pledge to tackle New Jersey’s $30 billion deficit. He froze spending with a state of emergency and then cut $10 billion from the state budget. A Republican player and fundraiser from way back, he has been aces in terms of campaigning for fellow Tea Party-endorsed candidates, and most recently on Saturday, won a 2012 presidential straw poll at the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention (one point more than Sarah Palin).
But constitution-minded Tea Partiers who have spent the last year railing against government overreach and state encroachment on civil liberties, should ask why a medical marijuana law that was enacted by a majority of New Jersey’s democratically elected legislature and supported overwhelmingly by its citizens, is being rewritten by Christie’s administration with what seems like a clear aim of smothering it in the crib. While liberty-loving voters inside and outside New Jersey are no doubt bedazzled by his willingness to cut taxes and hack away at public education funding, just as important is this recent impulse to wield state power like a sword, imposing his own framework fostered as a Bush-appointed U.S Attorney, on the will of the people.
From Charles Davis at Change.org:
On October 6th, Department of Health Commissioner Poonam Alaigh, a Christie-appointee, unveiled the state’s plan for implementing the medical marijuana program — and it has activists and the law’s authors outraged. While the law itself calls for six “alternative treatment centers” to be placed throughout the state, New Jersey’s draft regulations would allow just two of the centers to actually grow marijuana; just four would be allowed to distribute it. That means just one federal raid could potentially shut down the state’s entire medical marijuana distribution system, leaving patients who would be completely dependent on that system without access to their doctor-prescribed medication.
And that just might be the governor’s intent.
“The entire set of regulations seems to be a political move based on how restrictive you can make a medical marijuana program, rather than a reasonable set of regulations that follows the intent of the law,” activist Chris Goldstein of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana–New Jersey (CMMNJ) says in an interview with Change.org.
Beyond just limiting distribution, the Christie administration is subverting the law in several ways that have nothing to do with science but everything to do with discouraging participation in the program.
The law as enacted — and signed by former Gov. Jon Corzine in January — is already the toughest among the medical marijuana laws passed by 13 other states in recent years. Christie’s heavy-handed modifications are most definitely a reflection of his aversion to it from the start. He already sought to delay the program’s implementation for a year. This might sound like minutes to Washington bureaucrats, but for a patient wasting away from AIDS or suffering from chemo-inducing nausea, it could very well be a lifetime.
Especially when you see the hoops he wants to put up just for a patient to get registered — it’s like a punishment in itself. The feds should be proud at how many disincentives he’s creating for the sick people who want an alternative to powerful prescription painkillers like Oxycotin and Percocet (New Jersey, by the way, is a leading manufacturer of both).
Whoever is involved in this new treatment process — the doctor writing the prescriptions, the caregivers assisting, dispensaries/growers and the patients themselves — had better expect all of the indignities of a bureaucracy designed to make every step more miserable and feel more like a trap. This is how it feels when the state is forced to deliver on a privilege it really doesn’t think you deserve.
But the people do. In this 2006 poll (.pdf) of 700 New Jersey voters, 86 percent said marijuana should be legally available through a doctor’s prescription; the law passed New Jersey’s elected governing body by an bipartisan pair of votes: 48-14 in the General Assembly and 25-13 in the State Senate.
Sure, Christie says he does not want the NJ program to roll out like California, where prescriptions are much easier to get and dispensaries are much more freewheeling and profitable. But let’s be clear here. The NJ law stands, without Christie’s tinkering, as a polar opposite of the California program. For example, the law signed in January clearly states that prescribing doctors must have a “bone fide” relationship with the patient, meaning they have to be treating the disease or condition for which the patient wants the marijuana prescription — no other doctor will do. There will be nothing like “doctor shopping” to get on the registry in New Jersey. And patients must be suffering from one of ten specific diseases or conditions — and the list does not include mental illness. Caregivers and dispensary/grower applicants are fingerprinted and put through extensive background checks, including a review by the FBI.
Under Christie’s proposed rules, however, doctors must also exhaust all other traditional remedies for a patient before signing off on marijuana. The process for getting more conditions or diseases on the official list would be akin to walking through a bureaucratic ring of fire. The regulations for the dispensaries themselves promise to render the facilities no different than Soviet-era grocery stores in Moscow, replete with 24-hour surveillance. The potency of the weed is reduced to 10 percent THC levels.
The whole idea: the state can giveth, but it would be just as happy to taketh away. Not very Tea Party-like. But Christie cut his teeth as a federal prosecutor and has been the target of ACLU complaints before (warrantless cell phone taps). He’s no doubt on the feds’ side on this one. The feds, who out in California are actually bucking an Obama Administration directive to stay off authorized marijuana users and growers’ backs, and are busting them anyway.
This might be the future — citizens work hard to change things democratically, in this case, marijuana reform, and politicians and institutions that don’t like it, get their revenge in the rule-making process, which is not so democratic. Nor very liberty-loving.




Here are some facts concerning the situation in Holland. –Please save a copy and use it as a reference when debating prohibitionists who claim the exact opposite concerning reality as presented here below:
Cannabis-coffee-shops are not only restricted to the Capital of Holland, Amsterdam. They can be found in more than 50 cities and towns across the country. At present, only the retail sale of five grams is tolerated, so production remains criminalized. The mayors of a majority of the cities with coffeeshops have long urged the national government to also decriminalize the supply side.
A poll taken earlier this year indicated that some 50% of the Dutch population thinks cannabis should be fully legalized while only 25% wanted a complete ban. Even though 62% of the voters said they had never taken cannabis. An earlier poll also indicated 80% opposing coffee shop closures.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/public_split_on_cannabis_legal.php
It is true that the number of coffee shops has fallen from its peak of around 2,500 throughout the country to around 700 now. The problems, if any, concern mostly marijuana-tourists and are largely confined to cities and small towns near the borders with Germany and Belgium. These problems, mostly involve traffic jams, and are the result of cannabis prohibition in neighboring countries. Public nuisance problems with the coffee shops are minimal when compared with bars, as is demonstrated by the rarity of calls for the police for problems at coffee shops.
While it is true that lifetime and past-month use rates did increase back in the seventies and eighties, the critics shamefully fail to report that there were comparable and larger increases in cannabis use in most, if not all, neighboring countries which continued complete prohibition.
According to the World Health Organization only 19.8 percent of the Dutch have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure.
In Holland 9.7% of young adults (aged 15 to 24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%). Few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the compared countries.
The WHO survey of 17 countries finds that the United States has the highest usage rates for nearly all illegal substances.
In the U.S. 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana. The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the U.S. again leading the world by a large margin.
Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana. Again, the U.S. led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in Holland, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15 — roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.
thttp://www.alternet.org/drugs/90295/
In 1998, the US Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey claimed that the U.S. had less than half the murder rate of the Netherlands. That’s drugs, he explained. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics immediately issued a special press release explaining that the actual Dutch murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, or less than one-quarter the U.S. murder rate.
Here’s a very recent article by a psychiatrist from Amsterdam, exposing Drug Czar misinformation
http://tinyurl.com/247a8mp
Now let’s look at a comparative analysis of the levels of cannabis use in two cities: Amsterdam and San Francisco, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health May 2004,
The San Francisco prevalence survey showed that 39.2% of the population had used cannabis. This is 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample
Source: Craig Reinarman, Peter D.A. Cohen and Hendrien L. Kaal, The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy
http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf
Moreover, 51% of people who had smoked cannabis in San Francisco reported that they were offered heroin, cocaine or amphetamine the last time they purchased cannabis. In contrast, only 15% of Amsterdam residents who had ingested marijuana reported the same conditions. Prohibition is the ‘Gateway Policy’ that forces cannabis seekers to buy from criminals who gladly expose them to harder drugs.
The indicators of death, disease and corruption are even much better in the Netherlands than in Sweden for instance, a country praised by UNODC for its so called successful drug policy.
Here’s Antonio Maria Costa doing his level best to avoid discussing the success of Dutch drug policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lExNjEhdSkY&feature=related
The Netherlands also provides heroin on prescription under tight regulation to about 1500 long-term heroin addicts for whom methadone maintenance treatment has failed.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/free-heroin-brings-everyone-a-bit-peace
The Dutch justice ministry announced, last year, the closure of eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty. There’s simply not enough criminals
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2246821.ece/Netherlands_to_close_prisons_for_lack_of_criminals
For further information, kindly check out this very informative FAQ provided by Radio Netherlands: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/faq-soft-drugs-netherlands
or go to this page: http://www.rnw.nl/english/dossier/Soft-drugs