THIS BEING THE CURRENT VERSION OF
HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 3216 FILED ON: 1/12/2009 AMENDED
HOUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 2160
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
_______________
PRESENTED BY:
Frank I. Smizik
_______________
To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
Court assembled:
The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the passage of the accompanying bill:
An Act to regulate the medical use of marijuana by patients approved by physicians and certified by the department of public health.
_______________
PETITION OF:
Name:
District/Address:
Frank I. Smizik
15th Norfolk
John V. Fernandes
10th Worcester
Charles A. Murphy
21st Middlesex
Tom Sannicandro
7th Middlesex
Elizabeth A. Malia
11th Suffolk
Alice K. Wolf
25th Middlesex
Patricia D. Jehlen
Second Middlesex
Byron Rushing
9th Suffolk
Anne M. Gobi
5th Worcester
James B. Eldridge
Middlesex and Worcester
Ellen Story
3rd Hampshire
Robert L. Hedlund
Plymouth and Norfolk
[SIMILAR MATTER FILED IN PREVIOUS SESSION
SEE HOUSE, NO. 2247 OF 2007-2008.]
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
_______________
In the Year Two Thousand and Nine
_______________
An Act to regulate the medical use of marijuana by patients approved by physicians and certified by the department of public health.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Chapter 94 of the Massachusetts General Law is hereby amended by inserting the following as Chapter 94E: --
Chapter 94E Section 1. Short Title; Purpose.
Section 1. Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, shall be known, and may be cited, as "The Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Act." It is the purpose of this act to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their practitioners and designated caregivers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties, and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.
Chapter 94E Section 2. Definitions.
Section 2. As used in this chapter, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires
otherwise, have the following meanings:
(a) "Cardholder" means a qualifying patient, a primary caregiver, or a principal officer,
board member, employee, volunteer, or agent of a medical treatment center who has been issued and possesses a valid registry identification card.
(b) "Medical treatment center" means a not-for-profit entity registered under Chapter 94E Section 6 that acquires, possesses, cultivates, manufactures, delivers, transfers, transports, supplies, sells, and/or dispenses marijuana and/or related supplies and educational materials to registered qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers who have designated it as one of their primary caregivers.
(c) "Debilitating medical condition" means one or more of the following:
(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions;
(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to, those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to, those characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or
(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the department, as provided for in Chapter 94E Section 4.
(d) "Department" means the Massachusetts Department of Public Health or its successor agency.
(e) "Enclosed, locked facility” means a closet, room, greenhouse, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a cardholder.
(f) Marijuana" has the meaning given that term in Chapter 94C Section 1.
(g) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the consumption of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition.
(h) "Practitioner" means a person who is licensed with authority to prescribe drugs pursuant to Chapter 94C Section 18.
(i) "Primary caregiver" means either a medical treatment center or a natural person who is at least eighteen (18) years old who has agreed to assist with a person's medical use of marijuana and who does not have a felony drug conviction. Unless the primary caregiver is a medical treatment center, a primary caregiver may assist no more than five (5) qualifying patients with their medical use of marijuana.
(j) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as having a debilitating medical condition.
(k) "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of marijuana, and any mixture or preparation thereof, and does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.
(l) “Visiting qualifying patient” means a person with a debilitating medical condition that is currently participating in another state’s medical marijuana program, is in possession of a valid out-of-state identification card or its equivalent, and has resided in Massachusetts for less than 30 days.
(l) "Written certification" means a document signed by a practitioner, stating that in the practitioner's professional opinion the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the qualifying patient. A written certification shall be made only in the course of a bona fide practitioner-patient relationship after the practitioner has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history. The written certification shall specify the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or conditions.
Chapter 94E Section 3. Protections for the medical use of marijuana.
Section 3. (a) A qualifying patient who has in his or her possession a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marijuana; provided, that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marijuana that does not exceed twelve (12) marijuana plants and four (4) ounces of usable marijuana. Said plants shall be stored in an enclosed, locked facility.
(b) No school, employer or landlord may refuse to enroll, employ or lease to or otherwise penalize a person solely for his or her status as a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver.
(c) A primary caregiver, who has in his or her possession, a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marijuana; provided, that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marijuana which does not exceed twelve (12) marijuana plants and four (4) ounces of usable marijuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.
(d) There shall exist a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:
(1) Is in possession of a registry identification card; and
(2) Is in possession of an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the amount permitted under this chapter. Such presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition.
(e) A primary caregiver may receive reimbursement for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana. Compensation shall not constitute sale of controlled substances.
(f) A practitioner shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine or by any another business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau solely for providing written certifications or for otherwise stating that, in the practitioner's professional opinion, the potential benefits of the medical marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for a patient.
(g) Any marijuana, marijuana paraphernalia, interest in or right to property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.
(h) No person shall be subject to arrest or prosecution for constructive possession, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, being an accessory, or any other offense for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana as permitted under this chapter or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marijuana.
(i) A practitioner, nurse or pharmacist shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for discussing the benefits or health risks of medical marijuana or its interaction with other substances with a patient.
(j) Except as provided in this paragraph, a registry identification card or its equivalent issued under the laws of another U.S. state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia to permit the medical use of marijuana shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department, and, for purposes of this Act, entitle a visiting qualify patient to the same rights and protections as a registered qualifying patient residing in Massachusetts. This paragraph shall not apply if the person has been a resident of Massachusetts for 30 days or longer at the time they present their out-of-state identification card or its equivalent.
(k) Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 94E Section 2(h) or Chapter 94E Section 3(c), no primary caregiver other than a medical treatment center shall possess an amount of marijuana in excess of twenty-four (24) marijuana plants and eight (8) ounces of usable marijuana for qualifying patients to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.
(l) A registered cardholder or visiting qualifying patient may give marijuana to another cardholder or a medical treatment center to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in Chapter 94E Section 3(a).
(m) For the purposes of medical care, including organ and tissue transplants, a registered qualifying patient’s authorized use of marijuana shall be considered the equivalent of the authorized use of any other medication used at the direction of a physician, and shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance.
Chapter 94E Section 4. Department to issue regulations.
Section 4. (a) Not later than ninety (90) days after the effective date of this chapter, the department shall promulgate regulations governing the manner in which it shall consider petitions from the public to add debilitating medical conditions to those set forth in Chapter 94 E Section 2(a). In considering such petitions, the department shall include public notice of, and an opportunity to comment in a public hearing, upon such petitions. The department shall, after hearing, approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty (180) days of submission. The approval or denial of such a petition shall be considered a final department action, subject to judicial review. Jurisdiction and venue for judicial review are vested in the superior court. The denial of a petition shall not disqualify qualifying patients with that condition, if they have a chronic or debilitating medical condition.
The denial of a petition shall not prevent a person with the denied condition from raising an affirmative defense.
(b) Not later than ninety (90) days after the effective date of this chapter, the department shall promulgate regulations governing the manner in which it shall consider applications for and renewals of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers. The department's regulations shall establish application and renewal fees that generate revenues sufficient to offset all expenses of implementing and administering this chapter. The department may vary the application and renewal fees along a sliding scale that accounts for a qualifying patient's or caregiver's income. The department may accept donations from private sources in order to reduce the application and renewal fees.
Chapter 94E Section 5. Administration of regulations.
Section 5. (a) The department shall issue registry identification cards to qualifying patients who submit the following, in accordance with the department's regulations:
(1) Written certification as defined in Chapter 94E subsection 2(i);
(2) Application or renewal fee;
(3) Name, address, and date of birth of the qualifying patient; provided, however, that if the patient is homeless, no address is required;
(4) Name, address, and telephone number of the qualifying patient's practitioner; and
(5) Name, address, and date of birth of each primary caregiver of the qualifying patient, if any.
(b) The department shall not issue a registry identification card to a qualifying patient under the age of eighteen (18) unless:
(1) The qualifying patient's practitioner has explained the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana to the qualifying patient and to a parent, guardian or person having legal custody of the qualifying patient; and
(2) A parent, guardian or person having legal custody consents in writing to:
(i) Allow the qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana;
(ii) Serve as one of the qualifying patient's primary caregivers; and
(iii) Control the acquisition of the marijuana, the dosage, and the frequency of the medical use of marijuana by the qualifying patient.
(c) The department shall verify the information contained in an application or renewal submitted pursuant to this section, and shall approve or deny an application or renewal within fifteen (15) days of receiving it. The department may deny an application or renewal only if the applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this section, or if the department determines that the information provided was falsified. Rejection of an application or renewal is considered a final department action, subject to judicial review. Jurisdiction and venue for judicial review are vested in the superior court.
(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to each primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application, up to a maximum of two (2) primary caregivers per qualifying patient.
(e) The department shall issue registry identification cards within five (5) days of approving an application or renewal, which shall expire two (2) years after the date of issuance. Registry identification cards shall contain:
(1) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry identification card;
(2) A random registry identification number; and
(3) A photograph, if the department decides to require one; and
(4) Any additional information as required by regulation or the department.
(f) Persons issued registry identification cards shall be subject to the following:
(1) A qualifying patient who has been issued a registry identification card shall notify the department of any change in the qualifying patient's name, address, or primary caregiver; or if the qualifying patient ceases to have his or her debilitating medical condition, within ten (10) days of such change.
(2) A registered qualifying patient who fails to notify the department of any of these changes is
responsible for a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of no more than one hundred fifty dollars ($150). If the person has ceased to suffer from a debilitating medical condition, the card shall be deemed null and void and the person shall be liable for any other penalties that may apply to the person's non-medical use of marijuana.
(3) A registered primary caregiver or principal officer, board member, employee, volunteer, or agent of a medical treatment center shall notify the department of any change in his or her name or address within ten (10) days of such change. A primary caregiver or principal officer, board member, employee, volunteer, or agent of a medical treatment center who fails to notify the department of any of these changes is responsible for a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of no more than one hundred fifty dollars ($150).
(4) When a qualifying patient or primary caregiver notifies the department of any changes listed in this subsection, the department shall issue the registered qualifying patient and each primary caregiver a new registry identification card within ten (10) days of receiving the updated information and a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) fee. When a principal officer, board member, employee, volunteer, or agent of a medical treatment center notifies the department of any changes listed in this subsection, the department shall issue the cardholder a new registry identification card within ten (10) days of receiving the updated information and a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) fee.
(5) When a qualifying patient who possesses a registry identification card changes his or her primary caregiver, the department shall notify the primary caregiver within ten (10) days. The primary caregiver's protections as provided in this chapter shall expire ten (10) days after notification by the department. This expiration does not apply to the primary caregiver's protections stemming from his or her relationships with other patients.
(6) If a cardholder loses his or her registry identification card, he or she shall notify the department and submit a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) fee within ten (10) days of losing the card. Within five (5) days, the department shall issue a new registry identification card with new random identification number.
(7) If a qualifying patient, primary caregiver, or a principal officer, board member, employee, volunteer, or agent of a medical treatment center willfully violates any provision of this chapter as determined by the department, his or her registry identification card may be revoked.
(g) Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion, nor shall it be used to support the search of the person or property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or property of the person to inspection by any governmental agency.
(h) (1) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients, including information regarding their primary caregivers and practitioners, are confidential and protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
(2) The department shall maintain a confidential list of the persons to whom the department has issued registry identification cards. Individual names and other identifying information on the list shall be confidential, exempt from the provisions of Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. Chapter 66, section 10, and not subject to disclosure, except to authorized employees of the department as necessary to perform official duties of the department.
(i) The department shall verify to law enforcement personnel whether a registry identification card is valid solely by confirming the random registry identification number.
(j) It shall be a crime, punishable by up to one hundred eighty (180) days in jail and a one thousand dollar ($1,000) fine, for any person, including an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local government, to breach the confidentiality of information obtained pursuant to this chapter.
Notwithstanding this provision, the department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.
(k) On or before January 1 of each odd numbered year, the department shall report to the Joint Committee on Public Health, and to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, on the use of marijuana for symptom relief. The report shall provide:
(1) The number of applications for registry identification cards, the number of qualifying patients and primary caregivers approved, the nature of the debilitating medical conditions of the qualifying patients, the number of registry identification cards revoked, and the number of practitioners providing written certification for qualifying patients;
(2) An evaluation of the costs, savings, and revenue resulting from permitting the use of marijuana for symptom relief, including any costs to law enforcement agencies and costs of any litigation;
(3) Statistics regarding the number of marijuana-related prosecutions against registered patients and caregivers, and an analysis of the facts underlying those prosecutions;
(4) Statistics regarding the number of prosecutions against physicians for violations of this chapter; and
(5) Whether the United States Food and Drug Administration has altered its position regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes or has approved alternative delivery systems for marijuana.
(m) The application for qualifying patients' registry identification cards shall include a question asking whether the patient would like the department to notify him or her of any clinical studies about marijuana's risk or efficacy. The department shall inform those patients who answer in the affirmative of any such studies it is notified of that will be conducted in Massachusetts. The department may also notify those patients of medical studies conducted outside of Massachusetts.
Chapter 94E Section 6 Medical treatment centers.
Section 6. (a) A medical treatment center registered under this section may acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, sell, and/or dispense marijuana, and/or related supplies and educational materials, to registered qualifying patients and their registered primary caregivers who have designated it as one of their primary caregivers. A medical treatment center is a primary caregiver. A medical treatment center may cultivate and possess whichever of the following quantities is greater: (a) 96 marijuana plants and 32 ounces of useable marijuana; or (b) 12 plants and 4 ounces for each registered qualifying patient who has designated the medical treatment center to provide him or her with marijuana for medical use. However, if a registered qualifying patient who designated the medical treatment center ceases to be a registered qualifying patient or ceases to designate the medical treatment center, the medical treatment center shall have 10 days after the notification to lawfully dispose of or destroy any excess plants or marijuana. A medical treatment center may also possess marijuana seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.
(b) Registration of medical treatment centers: department authority.
(1) Not later than ninety (90) days after the effective date of this act, the department shall promulgate reasonable regulations governing the manner in which it shall consider applications for registration certificates for medical treatment centers, including regulations governing:
(i) The form and content of registration and renewal applications;
(ii) Minimum oversight requirements for medical treatment centers;
(iii) Minimum record-keeping requirements for medical treatment centers;
(iv) Minimum security requirements for medical treatment centers, which shall include that each medical treatment center location must be protected by a fully operational security alarm system; and
(v) Procedures for suspending or terminating the registration of medical treatment centers that violate the provisions of this section or the regulations promulgated pursuant to this subsection.
(2) The department shall design regulations with the goal of protecting against diversion and theft, without imposing an undue burden on the registered medical treatment centers or compromising the confidentiality of registered qualifying patients and their registered designated caregivers. Any dispensing records that a registered medical treatment center is required to keep shall track transactions according to registered qualifying patients', registered caregivers’, and registered medical treatment centers' registry identification numbers, rather than their names, to protect their confidentiality.
(3) Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this act, the department shall begin accepting applications for the operation of up to 19 medical treatment centers.
(4) Within one hundred-fifty (150) days of the effective date of this act, the department shall provide for at least one public hearing on the granting of applications to medical treatment centers.
(5) Within one hundred-ninety (190) days of the effective date of this act, the department shall grant registration certificates to 19 medical treatment centers, providing at least 19 applicants applied who meet the requirements of this act.
(6) Any time a medical treatment center registration certificate is revoked, is relinquished, or expires, the department shall accept applications for a new medical treatment center.
(7) If at any time after one year after the effective date of this act fewer than 19 medical treatment centers are holding valid registration certificates in Massachusetts or if at any time the department or legislative oversight committee conclude that the existing medical treatment centers are not sufficient to provide safe access to registered qualifying patients in Massachusetts, the department shall accept applications for enough additional medical treatment centers to serve all qualifying patients.
(c) Medical treatment center and agent applications and registration.
(1) Each application for a medical treatment center shall include:
(i) A non-refundable application fee paid to the department in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250);
(ii) The proposed legal name, proposed articles of incorporation, and proposed bylaws of the medical treatment center;
(iii) The proposed physical address of the medical treatment center, if a precise address has been determined, or, if not, the general location where it would be located. This may include a second location for the cultivation of medical marijuana;
(iv) A description of the enclosed, locked facility that would be used in the cultivation of marijuana;
(v) The name, address, and date of birth of each principal officer and board member of the medical treatment center;
(vi) Proposed security and safety measures, which shall include at least one security alarm system for each location, planned measures to deter and prevent the unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana and the theft of marijuana; and
(vii) Proposed procedures to ensure accurate record keeping.
(2) Anytime one or more medical treatment center registration applications are being considered, the department shall also allow for comment by the public and shall solicit input from registered qualifying patients, registered primary caregivers, and the towns or cities where the applicants would be located.
(3) Each time when a medical treatment center certificate is granted, the decision shall be based on the overall health needs of qualified patients and the safety of the public, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(i) Convenience to patients from throughout the commonwealth of Massachusetts to medical treatment centers if the applicant were approved;
(ii) The applicant's ability to provide a steady supply to the registered qualifying patients in the commonwealth;
(iii) The applicant's relevant experience, including any experience running a non-profit or business;
(iv) The wishes of qualifying patients regarding which applicant should be granted a registration certificate;
(v) The wishes of the city or town where the applicant would be located; and
(vi) The sufficiency of the applicant's plans for record keeping, which records shall be considered confidential health care information under Massachusetts law and are intended to be deemed protected health care information for purposes of the federal health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996, as amended; and
(vii) The sufficiency of the applicant's plans for safety and security, including proposed location and security devices.
(4) After a medical treatment center is approved, but before it begins operations, it shall submit the following to the department:
(i) A fee paid to the department in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000);
(ii) The legal name and articles of incorporation of the medical treatment center;
(iii) The physical address of the medical treatment center; this may include a second address for the secure cultivation of marijuana;
(iv) The name, address, and date of birth of each principal officer and board member of the medical treatment center;
(v) The name, address, and date of birth of any person who will be an agent of or employed by the medical treatment center at its inception.
(5) The department shall track the number of registered qualifying patients who designate each medical treatment center as a primary caregiver, and issue a written statement to the medical treatment center of the number of qualifying patients who have designated the medical treatment center to serve as a primary caregiver for them and each of those qualifying patients’ registry identification numbers. This statement shall be updated each time a new registered qualifying patient designates the medical treatment center or ceases to designate the medical treatment center and may be transmitted electronically over an encrypted connection if the department's regulations so provide. The department may provide by regulation that the updated written statements will not be issued more frequently than twice each week.
(6) Except as provided in Chapter 94E section 6 (c)(7), the department shall issue each principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, and employee of a medical treatment center a registry identification card or renewal card within ten (10) days of receipt of the person's name, address, date of birth, and a fee in an amount established by the department. Each card shall specify that the cardholder is a principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee of a medical treatment center and shall contain the following:
(i) The name, address, and date of birth of the principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee;
(ii) The legal name of the medical treatment center to which the principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee is affiliated;
(iii) A random identification number that is unique to the cardholder;
(iv) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry identification card; and
(v) A photograph, if the department decides to require one.
(7) Except as provided in this subsection, the department shall not issue a registry identification card to any principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee of a medical treatment center who has been convicted of a felony drug offense. The department may conduct a background check of each principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee in order to carry out this provision. The department shall notify the medical treatment center in writing of the purpose for denying the registry identification card. The department may grant such person a registry identification card if the department determines that the offense was for conduct that occurred prior to the enactment of this act or that was prosecuted by an authority other than the commonwealth of Massachusetts and for which this act would otherwise have prevented a conviction.
(8) A registration identification card of a principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee shall expire one year after its issuance, or upon the expiration of the registered organization's registration certificate, whichever occurs first.
(d) Expiration or termination of medical treatment center registration.
(1) A medical treatment center's registration shall expire two (2) years after its registration certificate is issued. The medical treatment center may submit a renewal application beginning sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of its registration certificate.
(2) The department shall grant a medical treatment center's renewal application within thirty
(30) days of its submission if the following conditions are all satisfied:
(i) The medical treatment center submits the materials required under Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (c)(4), including a five thousand dollar ($5,000) fee, which shall be refunded within 30 days if the renewal application is rejected;
(ii) The department has not ever suspended the medical treatment center's registration for violations of this act or regulations issued pursuant to it;
(iii) The legislative oversight committee's report, issued pursuant to Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (j), indicates that the medical treatment center is adequately providing patients with access to medical marijuana at reasonable rates; and
(iv) The legislative oversight committee's report, issued pursuant to Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (j), does not raise serious concerns about the continued operation of the medical treatment center applying for renewal.
(3) If the department determines that any of the conditions listed in Chapter 94 E, Sections 6 (d)(2)(i) – (iv) do not exist, the department shall begin an open application process for the operation of a medical treatment center. In granting a new registration certificate, the department shall consider factors listed in Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (c)(3).
(4) The department shall issue a medical treatment center one or more thirty (30) day temporary registration certificates after that medical treatment center's registration would otherwise expire if the following conditions are all satisfied:
(i) The medical treatment center previously applied for a renewal, but the department had not yet come to a decision;
(ii) The medical treatment center requested a temporary registration certificate; and
(iii) The medical treatment center has not had its registration certificate revoked due to violations of this act or regulations issued pursuant to this act.
(e) Inspection. Medical treatment centers are subject to reasonable inspection by the department. The department shall give reasonable notice of an inspection under this subsection. During an inspection, the department may review the medical treatment center’s confidential records, including its dispensing records, which may track transactions according to qualifying patients’ registry identification numbers to protect their confidentiality.
(f) Medical treatment center requirements.
(1) A medical treatment center shall be operated on a not-for-profit basis for the mutual benefit of patients who are allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. A medical treatment center need not be recognized as a tax-exempt organization by the Internal Revenue Service.
(2) A medical treatment center may not be located within five hundred (500) feet of the property line of a preexisting public or private school.
(3) A medical treatment center shall notify the department within ten (10) days of when a principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee ceases to be associated with and/or work at the medical treatment center. His or her card shall be deemed null and void and the person shall be liable for any other penalties that may apply to the person's nonmedical use of marijuana.
(4) A medical treatment center shall notify the department in writing of the name, address, and date of birth of any new principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee and shall submit a fee in an amount established by the department for a new registry identification card before a new agent or employee begins working at the medical treatment center.
(5) A medical treatment center shall implement appropriate security measures to prevent the theft of marijuana and the unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana, and shall ensure that each location has an operational security alarm system.
(6) The operating documents of a medical treatment center shall include procedures for the oversight of the medical treatment center and procedures to ensure accurate record keeping.
(7) A medical treatment center is prohibited from acquiring, possessing, cultivating, manufacturing, delivering, transferring, transporting, supplying, selling, and/or dispensing marijuana for any purpose except to assist patients who are allowed to use marijuana pursuant to this chapter with the medical use of marijuana directly or through the qualifying patients' other primary caregiver.
(8) Each time a new registered qualifying patient visits a medical treatment center, it shall provide the patient with frequently asked questions designed by the department, which explains the limitations on the right to use medical marijuana under state law.
(9) Each medical treatment center shall develop, implement, and maintain on the premises employee and agent policies and procedures to address the following requirements:
(i) A job description or employment contract developed for all employees and a volunteer agreement for all volunteers, which includes duties, authority, responsibilities, qualifications, and supervision; and
(ii) Training in and adherence to Massachusetts confidentiality laws.
(10) Each medical treatment center shall maintain a personnel record for each employee and each volunteer that includes an application for employment or to volunteer and a record of any disciplinary action taken; and
(11) Each medical treatment center shall develop, implement, and maintain on the premises on-site training curricula, or enter into contractual relationships with outside resources capable of meeting employee training needs, which includes, but is not limited to, the following topics:
(a) Professional conduct, ethics, and patient confidentiality; and
(b) Informational developments in the field of the medical use of marijuana.
(12) Each medical treatment center entity shall provide each employee and each volunteer, at the time of his or her initial appointment, training in the following:
(i) The proper use of security measures and controls that have been adopted; and
(ii) Specific procedural instructions on how to respond to an emergency, including robbery or violent accident.
(13) All medical treatment centers shall prepare training documentation for each employee and have employees sign a statement indicating the date, time, and place the employee received said training and topics discussed, to include name and title of presenters. The medical treatment center shall maintain documentation of an employee's and a volunteer’s training for a period of at least six (6) months after termination of an employee's employment or the volunteer’s volunteering.
(g) Maximum amount of usable marijuana to be dispensed.
(1) A medical treatment center or principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee of a medical treatment center may not dispense more than four (4) ounces of usable marijuana to a qualifying patient directly or through the patient’s other primary caregiver during a fifteen (15) day period.
(2) A medical treatment center or principal officer, board member, agent, or employee of a medical treatment center may not dispense an amount of usable marijuana or marijuana plants to a qualifying patient or a primary caregiver that the medical treatment center, principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee knows would cause the recipient to possess more marijuana than is permitted under this chapter.
(h) Immunity.
(1) No registered medical treatment center shall be subject to prosecution; search, except by the department pursuant to Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (e); seizure; or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business, occupational, or professional licensing board or entity solely for acting in accordance with this section to assist registered qualifying patients to whom it is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marijuana.
(2) No principal officers, board members, agents, volunteers, or employees of a registered medical treatment center shall be subject to arrest, prosecution, search, seizure, or penalty in any manner or denied any right or privilege including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business, occupational, or professional licensing board or entity solely for working for or with a medical treatment center to engage in acts permitted by this chapter.
(i) Prohibitions.
(1) (a) A medical treatment center may not possess an amount of marijuana that exceeds whichever of the following quantities is greater: (i) 96 marijuana plants and 32 ounces of useable marijuana; or (ii) 12 plants and 4 ounces of usable marijuana for each registered qualifying patient who has designated the medical treatment center to provide him or her with marijuana for medical use. However, if a registered qualifying patient who designated the medical treatment center ceases to be a registered qualifying patient or ceases to designate the medical treatment center, the medical treatment center shall have10 days after the notification to lawfully dispose of or destroy any excess plants or marijuana.
(b) A medical treatment center may also possess marijuana seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.
(2) A medical treatment center may not dispense, deliver, or otherwise transfer marijuana to a person other than a qualifying patient who has designated the medical treatment center as a primary caregiver or to such patient's primary caregiver.
(3) A person found to have violated paragraph (2) of this subsection may not be an employee, volunteer, agent, principal officer, or board member of any medical treatment center, and such person's registry identification card shall be immediately revoked.
(4) No person who has been convicted of a felony drug offense may be the principal officer, board member, agent, volunteer, or employee of a medical treatment center unless the department has determined that the person's conviction was for the medical use of marijuana or assisting with the medical use of marijuana and has issued the person a registry identification card as provided under Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (c)(7). A person who is employed by or is an agent, volunteer, principal officer, or board member of a medical treatment center in violation of this section is guilty of a civil violation punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000). A subsequent violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor.
(5) All cultivation of marijuana must take place in an enclosed, locked facility, which can only be accessed by principal officers, board members, agents, volunteers, or employees of the registered medical treatment center who are cardholders.
(j) Legislative oversight committee.
(1) The General Court shall appoint a ten (10) member oversight committee comprised of: one member of the House of Representatives; one member of the Senate; one physician to be selected from a list provided by the Massachusetts Medical Society; one nurse to be selected from a list provided by the Massachusetts State Nurses Association; three (3) registered qualifying patients; one registered primary caregiver; one patient advocate; and one representative of the law enforcement community.
(2) The oversight committee shall meet at least three (3) times per year for the purpose of evaluating and making recommendations to the General Court regarding:
(i) Patients' access to medical marijuana,
(ii) The efficacy of each registered medical treatment center, and medical treatment centers as a whole, including the reasonableness of pricing and patients’ feedback on the quality of the marijuana;
(iii) Physician participation in the Medical Marijuana Program;
(iv) The definition of qualifying debilitating medical conditions; and
(v) Research studies regarding health effects of medical marijuana for patients.
(3) On or before January of every even-numbered year, the oversight committee shall report to the general court and the department on its findings.
Chapter 94E Section 7. Scope of chapter.
Section 7. (a) This chapter shall not permit:
(1) Any person to undertake any task under the influence of marijuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice;
(2) The smoking of marijuana:
(i) In a school bus or other form of public transportation;
(ii) On any school grounds;
(iii) In any correctional facility;
(iv) In any public place; or
(v) In any licensed drug treatment facility in this state.
(3) Any person to operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana. However, a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence solely for having marijuana metabolites in his or her system.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require:
(1) A government medical assistance program or private health insurer to reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana; or
(2) An employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any workplace.
(c) Fraudulent representation to a law enforcement official of any fact or circumstance relating to the medical use of marijuana to avoid arrest or prosecution shall be punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars ($500) which shall be in addition to any other penalties that may apply for making a false statement for the non-medical use of marijuana.
Chapter 94E Section 8. Affirmative defense and dismissal.
Section 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a qualifying patient and the qualifying patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana, and such defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:
(1) The qualifying patient's practitioner has stated that, in the practitioner's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the person's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide practitioner patient relationship, the potential benefits of using marijuana for medical purposes would likely outweigh the health risks for the qualifying patient; and
(2) The person and the person's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marijuana that was not more than what is reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of alleviating the person's medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition.
(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the defendant shows the elements listed in Chapter 94 E, Section 6 (a).
(c) Any interest in or right to property that was possessed, owned, or used in connection with a person's use of marijuana for medical purposes shall not be forfeited if the person or the person's primary caregiver demonstrates the person's medical purpose for using marijuana pursuant to this section.
Chapter 94E Section 9. Enforcement.
Section 9. (a) If the department fails to adopt regulations to implement this chapter within one hundred twenty (120) days of the effective date of this act, a qualifying patient may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel the department to perform the actions mandated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) If the department fails to issue a valid registry identification card in response to a valid application submitted pursuant to this chapter within thirty-five (35) days of its submission, the registry identification card shall be deemed granted and a copy of the registry identification application shall be deemed valid registry identification card.
Chapter 94E Section 10. Severability.
Section 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Stakeholders Notes Coninued
Next Meeting
ASA can support us by
helping form local chapter
(consists of)10 members who agree to
1 public meeting monthly (at least)
agree to participate in ASA's National Campaign
(see website for further details)
ASA can create list serves
can post a stakeholder's memo
ASA Nat'l Gathering's in February
Media messageing- how to talk to media
tactics for Citizen Lobbying
Next Steps
1.List Serves
2.Stakeholder's Memo
3. Draft legislation between Now and January
4.Feb training
5.
Does anyone recall what point five was?
ASA can support us by
helping form local chapter
(consists of)10 members who agree to
1 public meeting monthly (at least)
agree to participate in ASA's National Campaign
(see website for further details)
ASA can create list serves
can post a stakeholder's memo
ASA Nat'l Gathering's in February
Media messageing- how to talk to media
tactics for Citizen Lobbying
Next Steps
1.List Serves
2.Stakeholder's Memo
3. Draft legislation between Now and January
4.Feb training
5.
Does anyone recall what point five was?
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Threat to Open Society and the Interactive Voter Choice System
By: Joe Firestone, aka letsgetitdone at firedoglake.com. Sunday November 21, 2010 9:12 pm PST.
TweetTweet1 Share
digg stumbleupon
The Problem
The biggest problem for Americans in our time is the increasingly dangerous threat to open society posed by the trend toward plutocracy and its effects on the political system. George Soros described the antecedents of these threats in The Age of Fallibility (pp. 100-101):
“Gradually, the methods developed for commercial purposes found a market in politics. This changed the character of politics. The original idea of elections was that candidates would come forward and announce what they stood for; and the electorate would decide whom they liked best. The supply of candidates and the preferences of the electorate were supposed to be independently given, just as in the theory of perfect competition. But the process was corrupted by the methods adopted from commercial life: focus groups and framing the messages. Politicians learned to cater to the desires of the electorate instead of propounding policies they believed in. The electorate did not remain unaffected. They chose the candidate who told them what they wanted to hear, but at the same time they could not avoid noticing that they were being manipulated; they were not surprised when their elected leaders deceived them. But there was no escape. The increasing sophistication of communication methods was built into the system. That is how America became a feel-good society. It was fostered by politicians seeking to be elected.”
One of the most damaging effects of the “feel-good society” is that the people are unable to keep politicians in check (p.96):
“In a democracy, it is the electorate that has to keep the politicians and the political operatives honest. That is where America is failing. A feel-good society, far from being committed to the pursuit of truth, cannot face harsh realities. This leaves it vulnerable to all kinds of false ideologies, Orwellian newspeak, and other deceptions.”
In the years since The Age of Fallibility appeared, we’ve seen dramatic increases in the amount of money spent on elections. Money is used to shape and distort the public’s view of reality, and the problem of its influence has been exacerbated by the Citizens United decision. Elected officials of both parties are influenced by campaign contributions, and a media bought by corporate money, to such an extent that there is no prospect of solving America’s many problems in ways that serve the public interest and benefit most people. Some even think that we now live in a plutocracy, and not in a democracy, and that both parties are corrupt, and now represent only the financial oligarchy. So, the central issue of our time is how we can overcome the influence of money on politics and make our political system more responsive once again.
This problem threatens open society in two ways. First, because the ability of the people to change leaders is now illusory, since the new elites are just as much influenced by a financial oligarchy, as the elites previously “in control” were. And second, because the ability for voters to see the truth is severely compromised by the influence over messaging and communications of the financial oligarchy. More and more, elite-dominated communications creates ‘reality’ for Americans. The actual reality of elite performance and the causes and cures of poor outcomes are viewed through a glass darkly, only.
For open society to function well, the truth about the reality of elite performance must be much more available and accessible to the efforts of citizens to arrive at it. But, increasingly, it is not. So, the two most important underlying conditions of open society, the ability for people to arrive at the truth (their cognitive function), and their ability to act on the truth to change elites (their participative function) are both undermined increasingly over time. As Soros rightly asks (p.110), “Who will enlighten the public” when these functions are compromised? And if the public cannot become enlightened, how will it keep the politicians and political operatives honest and focused on protecting the common good and the public trust? If nothing is done to stop this process of reality construction in the interests of the rulers, the end will certainly be the transformation of open society in America to a closed plutocracy. And given the speed of that transformation, its end may well come sooner rather than later.
Requirements for a solution
We won’t be able to stop the march toward plutocracy unless we can create a new institutional framework that allows us to change those aspects of our present situation that support plutocracy and undermine open society. It’s no good proposing or wishing for changes in the present legal system where such changes require the consent of the elites, because they have no incentives other than self-interest, except very occasional and intermittent altruism, and perhaps a low level of fear of mass movement-induced violence to motivate them to provide their consent for such changes. So, we need a framework that will operate within the context of existing rules and laws to create changes that will swing the dynamics of change away from plutocracy and toward open society.
The new institutional framework must provide a meta-level of political interaction and networking that places ecological constraints on the current system, driving it back towards a condition in which the ability of individuals to both arrive at more accurate constructions of reality, and act on these constructions, is dominant. Here are the requirements for such a framework.
– It must provide social contexts and milieus within which people can organize themselves and others around public policy agendas, comprised of policy options and policy priorities, into voting blocs and electoral coalitions ranging from very small to very large blocs of millions of voters without needing sizable financial resources from sources external to these social milieus, and without being subject to external mass media communications influenced by the financial oligarchs and other special interests.
– These social contexts and milieus must provide the possibility of informal group and social network formation around these policy agendas.
– These social contexts and milieus must be largely transparent and inclusive in providing participants with previously developed data, information, and knowledge, and in allowing them the freedom to participate in communicating, organizing, collaborating, critically evaluating, problem solving, and decision making within voting blocs and electoral coalitions.
– The social contexts and milieus must provide a modicum of trust for participants, in contrast to the two political parties, both of which are widely distrusted by a majority of Americans.
– The new institutional framework must enable participants and voting blocs to communicate their policy agendas (comprised of policy options and priorities) to candidates for public office and office holders, and also secure either commitments to these agendas or clear refusals to support the policy agendas from them.
– The framework must also enable participants and voting blocs to continuously monitor and rate performance of office holders against the agendas and to decide whether to continue to support office holders after performance ratings are arrived at.
– The framework must also provide enabling tools for voting blocs and electoral coalitions to organize efforts to get both major party and third party candidates and initiatives onto ballots, and to get people to the polls to vote. In other words, it must provide tools to enable voting blocs to do all the things political parties and factions now do to support candidates they want to elect and ballot initiatives they want to pass.
In short, the new institutional framework must provide an alternative to the contemporary world of political parties and established interest groups for analyzing political situations and issues, and for organizing people for political action. The alternative world must embody the key attributes of open society, which means it must provide an informal communications and knowledge network that is very much independent of the mass media, and also capable of enabling the creation of highly cohesive voting blocs and electoral coalitions of many millions of people, and even new political parties, which can offer decisive support to candidates and office holders in return for their continuing support of voting bloc agendas.
The Solution
We can use the Internet and the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), to create the alternative world I’ve just outlined, a network of voter-driven political organizations to counter the influence of money in politics, including the cognitive distortions created by using big money to frame debates and constantly introduce distractions from key issues. The collective action power of the Internet when combined with IVCS will make the creation of such organizations feasible. When fully developed IVCS will provide voters free policy agenda-setting and consensus-building tools to:
– Define their own policy options and prioritize them to create policy agendas,
– Social network with others who have similar agendas to their own,
– Collaborate and solve problems with others to create collective policy agendas, voting blocs, and electoral coalitions that work within existing parties or build new political parties, and
– Hold elected representatives accountable by monitoring and evaluating how well their performance matches the policy agendas of the voting blocs that have elected them to office.
The result of using IVCS will be voting blocs of various sizes and influence, formed by voters across the political spectrum. People will use the system to formulate common policy agendas, and then create self-organizing transpartisan voting blocs, electoral coalitions, and political parties around those agendas. They can use the system’s search/data mining tools to locate others whose policy agendas are most like their own, and join with them.
From the viewpoint of an individual, it may not be easy at first to organize voting blocs that develop cohesiveness and staying power, because people will have to negotiate out their differences to join together. But negotiating common agendas, and crafting winning electoral strategies at the grassroots, gives voters a lot more power than being hamstrung by the two major parties. The system will support such negotiations, and create the potential for so many policy agendas and voting bloc coalitions to form that it is virtually certain that new and powerful blocs, and even political parties, will emerge, grow rapidly, and begin to acquire national influence.
Voting blocs will at first have only a virtual identity in the IVCS. But the social ties formed in these self-organizing blocs will be real, and much stronger than the ties between political interest groups and the members they communicate with using marketing e-mails and other top-down methods of mobilization. When bloc members start to take their blocs into political party organizations and primaries, the transition will be made from virtual to full social reality. The system and the website built around the system will support agenda formation and political organization better than the legacy political parties because its Policy Options Database enables voters to formulate written policy agendas, and use their agendas as legislative mandates to select candidates and oversee those they elect. Prototypes of the Policy Options Database and the website can be viewed by clicking here.
http://www.reinventingdemocracy.us/mpsHomePageText.htm#PolicyOptions
In addition, it will provide consensus-building and collaborative tools that legacy parties have never sought to provide their supporters. The content management tools will be better than any political party’s. The social networking tools will be far superior. The problem solving and knowledge processing tools supplied will also be better than those of any existing political party’s, and will support people informing each other about critical issues during the problem solving process. In the context of the IVCS, the answer to the question “Who Will enlighten the public?” is that people will tell one another as part of their everyday interaction. Finally, state-of-the-art campaign organizing tools (and services) will be provided by third party service providers with proven track records.
The IVCS application will supply a richer virtual environment for new voting blocs to emerge from than anything now available. It will also support transparency, and political inclusiveness within its voting blocs, as well as whatever degree of privacy and security a voting bloc wants. Voting blocs will make decisions and resolve conflicts either by consensus or by using the IVCS Voting Utility.
They can also use the Utility to vote on proposed political alliances and coalitions. Since voting bloc members can always “vote with their feet,” by forming new blocs or joining other already existing blocs, and since new voting blocs will always be coming into existence, the dynamic environment of the IVCS will always be biased toward bottom-up organization, problem solving, and influence, rather than top-down control. Since problem solving in the system will be distributed and not centralized, blocs will be able to adapt to their environments better than traditional voting blocs, transcend the awkward stages of initial growth, and develop into new political organizations that can successfully challenge the legacy parties and the special interests as the driving force in the American political system.
The likelihood that national voting blocs will form and maintain themselves is great, because the yearning in America for change is great, as is the potential for many, many groups to form and fail, while giving up their members to those that survive. Most Americans want to do something about the mess we’re in. They want the political system to be responsive to the people. They’ll take advantage of IVCS because it will be the only practical way, in this time of corporate dominance of the mass media and the major political parties, that they can build winning voting blocs, electoral coalitions and political parties they control; select candidates for office on the basis of their own criteria (their written policy agendas); evaluate those they elect; influence them; and, finally, hold them accountable.
Since it will cost little more than time to organize and get one’s messages out by using it, the system will eliminate the need for voting blocs, political parties, and candidates to rely on contributions and special interest campaigns to get support. They’ll be able to spread their message using the facilities of the IVCS alone. The system will de-fang the Citizens United decision, and the influence of special interests more generally, because mass media-based propaganda campaigns will conflict with, and be critically evaluated by IVCS-based interactions and messaging within informal social networks and voting blocs.
Since the social ties within IVCS will be much stronger and more intense than the ties between individuals and organizations in mass media campaigns, such propaganda campaigns will become less and less effective in framing debates and influencing the cognitive functioning of individuals. Their role will diminish over time because spending a fortune on them won’t work to influence elections, once the IVCS is available and widely used. In the longer run, the transparency, inclusiveness, self-organizing tendencies, and intense political and social interaction within IVCS-enabled voting blocs, parties and coalitions will revitalize open society and assert open society controls over the electoral, legislative, and political processes.
Implementation
The IVCS can be implemented by integrating already developed and commercially available software using Web-Oriented Architecture (WOA). The systems integration work will deliver functionality that fulfills the above requirements, and provides content management and integration capabilities that people can use to track how well knowledge claims about policy options and impacts have survived criticism and evaluation in the past. IVCS will also include a security architecture to prevent its penetration by people who want to disrupt, take over, or manipulate the way it works.
A continuing worry is the ability of people in politics to avoid reality by framing their own narratives for interpreting both it and their own performance. There’s no way to stop attempts at that sort of thing from going on. But IVCS will allow people to incorporate counter-narratives and evaluations against the interpretations by the wealthy and powerful of their own performance on an equal footing. This sort of capability to expose everyone’s views to critical evaluation in the context of a neutral exchange platform is essential to restoring the effectiveness of the cognitive function in open society.
IVCS will also possess strong viral marketing and “political strategizing” capabilities, since its tools and services will be made available via a social networking platform. These will enable it to grow very quickly in membership and participation after its launch, both to influence the 2012 elections, and to defend itself against attempts to marginalize or neutralize it. The combination of systems integration and software work, strategizing, and marketing needing to be accomplished in a short time means that IVCS’s development and implementation must proceed at top speed in the coming months.
Conclusion
The IVCS web site can be developed as a host for a network of inter-connected voter-driven political organizations (voting blocs and electoral coalitions) to counter the influence of money in politics, including the cognitive distortions created by special interests using big money to frame debates and constantly introduce distractions from key issues. The network will provide a meta-level of political interaction that places ecological constraints on the current system so that it is driven back towards a condition in which the ability of individuals to both arrive at more accurate constructions of reality, and act on these constructions is dominant.
In the first quote above from The Age of Fallibility, George Soros identifies what is probably the most important cause of the movement away from open society and towards plutocracy, namely the deliberate manipulation of voters’ perceptions of reality. IVCS will be a powerful counter to this technology of political manipulation. By introducing a transparent, inclusive layer of networked social interaction, insulated from mass media manipulation, emphasizing problem solving and critical evaluation, and giving rise to legislative mandates backed by very large and powerful voting blocs and electoral coalitions, we can introduce open society epistemological and political controls into our electoral and political processes and make our representatives accountable once again. We can enable voters themselves to reverse the movement of the United States toward plutocracy, and move it in the direction of open society once more.
TweetTweet1 Share
digg stumbleupon
The Problem
The biggest problem for Americans in our time is the increasingly dangerous threat to open society posed by the trend toward plutocracy and its effects on the political system. George Soros described the antecedents of these threats in The Age of Fallibility (pp. 100-101):
“Gradually, the methods developed for commercial purposes found a market in politics. This changed the character of politics. The original idea of elections was that candidates would come forward and announce what they stood for; and the electorate would decide whom they liked best. The supply of candidates and the preferences of the electorate were supposed to be independently given, just as in the theory of perfect competition. But the process was corrupted by the methods adopted from commercial life: focus groups and framing the messages. Politicians learned to cater to the desires of the electorate instead of propounding policies they believed in. The electorate did not remain unaffected. They chose the candidate who told them what they wanted to hear, but at the same time they could not avoid noticing that they were being manipulated; they were not surprised when their elected leaders deceived them. But there was no escape. The increasing sophistication of communication methods was built into the system. That is how America became a feel-good society. It was fostered by politicians seeking to be elected.”
One of the most damaging effects of the “feel-good society” is that the people are unable to keep politicians in check (p.96):
“In a democracy, it is the electorate that has to keep the politicians and the political operatives honest. That is where America is failing. A feel-good society, far from being committed to the pursuit of truth, cannot face harsh realities. This leaves it vulnerable to all kinds of false ideologies, Orwellian newspeak, and other deceptions.”
In the years since The Age of Fallibility appeared, we’ve seen dramatic increases in the amount of money spent on elections. Money is used to shape and distort the public’s view of reality, and the problem of its influence has been exacerbated by the Citizens United decision. Elected officials of both parties are influenced by campaign contributions, and a media bought by corporate money, to such an extent that there is no prospect of solving America’s many problems in ways that serve the public interest and benefit most people. Some even think that we now live in a plutocracy, and not in a democracy, and that both parties are corrupt, and now represent only the financial oligarchy. So, the central issue of our time is how we can overcome the influence of money on politics and make our political system more responsive once again.
This problem threatens open society in two ways. First, because the ability of the people to change leaders is now illusory, since the new elites are just as much influenced by a financial oligarchy, as the elites previously “in control” were. And second, because the ability for voters to see the truth is severely compromised by the influence over messaging and communications of the financial oligarchy. More and more, elite-dominated communications creates ‘reality’ for Americans. The actual reality of elite performance and the causes and cures of poor outcomes are viewed through a glass darkly, only.
For open society to function well, the truth about the reality of elite performance must be much more available and accessible to the efforts of citizens to arrive at it. But, increasingly, it is not. So, the two most important underlying conditions of open society, the ability for people to arrive at the truth (their cognitive function), and their ability to act on the truth to change elites (their participative function) are both undermined increasingly over time. As Soros rightly asks (p.110), “Who will enlighten the public” when these functions are compromised? And if the public cannot become enlightened, how will it keep the politicians and political operatives honest and focused on protecting the common good and the public trust? If nothing is done to stop this process of reality construction in the interests of the rulers, the end will certainly be the transformation of open society in America to a closed plutocracy. And given the speed of that transformation, its end may well come sooner rather than later.
Requirements for a solution
We won’t be able to stop the march toward plutocracy unless we can create a new institutional framework that allows us to change those aspects of our present situation that support plutocracy and undermine open society. It’s no good proposing or wishing for changes in the present legal system where such changes require the consent of the elites, because they have no incentives other than self-interest, except very occasional and intermittent altruism, and perhaps a low level of fear of mass movement-induced violence to motivate them to provide their consent for such changes. So, we need a framework that will operate within the context of existing rules and laws to create changes that will swing the dynamics of change away from plutocracy and toward open society.
The new institutional framework must provide a meta-level of political interaction and networking that places ecological constraints on the current system, driving it back towards a condition in which the ability of individuals to both arrive at more accurate constructions of reality, and act on these constructions, is dominant. Here are the requirements for such a framework.
– It must provide social contexts and milieus within which people can organize themselves and others around public policy agendas, comprised of policy options and policy priorities, into voting blocs and electoral coalitions ranging from very small to very large blocs of millions of voters without needing sizable financial resources from sources external to these social milieus, and without being subject to external mass media communications influenced by the financial oligarchs and other special interests.
– These social contexts and milieus must provide the possibility of informal group and social network formation around these policy agendas.
– These social contexts and milieus must be largely transparent and inclusive in providing participants with previously developed data, information, and knowledge, and in allowing them the freedom to participate in communicating, organizing, collaborating, critically evaluating, problem solving, and decision making within voting blocs and electoral coalitions.
– The social contexts and milieus must provide a modicum of trust for participants, in contrast to the two political parties, both of which are widely distrusted by a majority of Americans.
– The new institutional framework must enable participants and voting blocs to communicate their policy agendas (comprised of policy options and priorities) to candidates for public office and office holders, and also secure either commitments to these agendas or clear refusals to support the policy agendas from them.
– The framework must also enable participants and voting blocs to continuously monitor and rate performance of office holders against the agendas and to decide whether to continue to support office holders after performance ratings are arrived at.
– The framework must also provide enabling tools for voting blocs and electoral coalitions to organize efforts to get both major party and third party candidates and initiatives onto ballots, and to get people to the polls to vote. In other words, it must provide tools to enable voting blocs to do all the things political parties and factions now do to support candidates they want to elect and ballot initiatives they want to pass.
In short, the new institutional framework must provide an alternative to the contemporary world of political parties and established interest groups for analyzing political situations and issues, and for organizing people for political action. The alternative world must embody the key attributes of open society, which means it must provide an informal communications and knowledge network that is very much independent of the mass media, and also capable of enabling the creation of highly cohesive voting blocs and electoral coalitions of many millions of people, and even new political parties, which can offer decisive support to candidates and office holders in return for their continuing support of voting bloc agendas.
The Solution
We can use the Internet and the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), to create the alternative world I’ve just outlined, a network of voter-driven political organizations to counter the influence of money in politics, including the cognitive distortions created by using big money to frame debates and constantly introduce distractions from key issues. The collective action power of the Internet when combined with IVCS will make the creation of such organizations feasible. When fully developed IVCS will provide voters free policy agenda-setting and consensus-building tools to:
– Define their own policy options and prioritize them to create policy agendas,
– Social network with others who have similar agendas to their own,
– Collaborate and solve problems with others to create collective policy agendas, voting blocs, and electoral coalitions that work within existing parties or build new political parties, and
– Hold elected representatives accountable by monitoring and evaluating how well their performance matches the policy agendas of the voting blocs that have elected them to office.
The result of using IVCS will be voting blocs of various sizes and influence, formed by voters across the political spectrum. People will use the system to formulate common policy agendas, and then create self-organizing transpartisan voting blocs, electoral coalitions, and political parties around those agendas. They can use the system’s search/data mining tools to locate others whose policy agendas are most like their own, and join with them.
From the viewpoint of an individual, it may not be easy at first to organize voting blocs that develop cohesiveness and staying power, because people will have to negotiate out their differences to join together. But negotiating common agendas, and crafting winning electoral strategies at the grassroots, gives voters a lot more power than being hamstrung by the two major parties. The system will support such negotiations, and create the potential for so many policy agendas and voting bloc coalitions to form that it is virtually certain that new and powerful blocs, and even political parties, will emerge, grow rapidly, and begin to acquire national influence.
Voting blocs will at first have only a virtual identity in the IVCS. But the social ties formed in these self-organizing blocs will be real, and much stronger than the ties between political interest groups and the members they communicate with using marketing e-mails and other top-down methods of mobilization. When bloc members start to take their blocs into political party organizations and primaries, the transition will be made from virtual to full social reality. The system and the website built around the system will support agenda formation and political organization better than the legacy political parties because its Policy Options Database enables voters to formulate written policy agendas, and use their agendas as legislative mandates to select candidates and oversee those they elect. Prototypes of the Policy Options Database and the website can be viewed by clicking here.
http://www.reinventingdemocracy.us/mpsHomePageText.htm#PolicyOptions
In addition, it will provide consensus-building and collaborative tools that legacy parties have never sought to provide their supporters. The content management tools will be better than any political party’s. The social networking tools will be far superior. The problem solving and knowledge processing tools supplied will also be better than those of any existing political party’s, and will support people informing each other about critical issues during the problem solving process. In the context of the IVCS, the answer to the question “Who Will enlighten the public?” is that people will tell one another as part of their everyday interaction. Finally, state-of-the-art campaign organizing tools (and services) will be provided by third party service providers with proven track records.
The IVCS application will supply a richer virtual environment for new voting blocs to emerge from than anything now available. It will also support transparency, and political inclusiveness within its voting blocs, as well as whatever degree of privacy and security a voting bloc wants. Voting blocs will make decisions and resolve conflicts either by consensus or by using the IVCS Voting Utility.
They can also use the Utility to vote on proposed political alliances and coalitions. Since voting bloc members can always “vote with their feet,” by forming new blocs or joining other already existing blocs, and since new voting blocs will always be coming into existence, the dynamic environment of the IVCS will always be biased toward bottom-up organization, problem solving, and influence, rather than top-down control. Since problem solving in the system will be distributed and not centralized, blocs will be able to adapt to their environments better than traditional voting blocs, transcend the awkward stages of initial growth, and develop into new political organizations that can successfully challenge the legacy parties and the special interests as the driving force in the American political system.
The likelihood that national voting blocs will form and maintain themselves is great, because the yearning in America for change is great, as is the potential for many, many groups to form and fail, while giving up their members to those that survive. Most Americans want to do something about the mess we’re in. They want the political system to be responsive to the people. They’ll take advantage of IVCS because it will be the only practical way, in this time of corporate dominance of the mass media and the major political parties, that they can build winning voting blocs, electoral coalitions and political parties they control; select candidates for office on the basis of their own criteria (their written policy agendas); evaluate those they elect; influence them; and, finally, hold them accountable.
Since it will cost little more than time to organize and get one’s messages out by using it, the system will eliminate the need for voting blocs, political parties, and candidates to rely on contributions and special interest campaigns to get support. They’ll be able to spread their message using the facilities of the IVCS alone. The system will de-fang the Citizens United decision, and the influence of special interests more generally, because mass media-based propaganda campaigns will conflict with, and be critically evaluated by IVCS-based interactions and messaging within informal social networks and voting blocs.
Since the social ties within IVCS will be much stronger and more intense than the ties between individuals and organizations in mass media campaigns, such propaganda campaigns will become less and less effective in framing debates and influencing the cognitive functioning of individuals. Their role will diminish over time because spending a fortune on them won’t work to influence elections, once the IVCS is available and widely used. In the longer run, the transparency, inclusiveness, self-organizing tendencies, and intense political and social interaction within IVCS-enabled voting blocs, parties and coalitions will revitalize open society and assert open society controls over the electoral, legislative, and political processes.
Implementation
The IVCS can be implemented by integrating already developed and commercially available software using Web-Oriented Architecture (WOA). The systems integration work will deliver functionality that fulfills the above requirements, and provides content management and integration capabilities that people can use to track how well knowledge claims about policy options and impacts have survived criticism and evaluation in the past. IVCS will also include a security architecture to prevent its penetration by people who want to disrupt, take over, or manipulate the way it works.
A continuing worry is the ability of people in politics to avoid reality by framing their own narratives for interpreting both it and their own performance. There’s no way to stop attempts at that sort of thing from going on. But IVCS will allow people to incorporate counter-narratives and evaluations against the interpretations by the wealthy and powerful of their own performance on an equal footing. This sort of capability to expose everyone’s views to critical evaluation in the context of a neutral exchange platform is essential to restoring the effectiveness of the cognitive function in open society.
IVCS will also possess strong viral marketing and “political strategizing” capabilities, since its tools and services will be made available via a social networking platform. These will enable it to grow very quickly in membership and participation after its launch, both to influence the 2012 elections, and to defend itself against attempts to marginalize or neutralize it. The combination of systems integration and software work, strategizing, and marketing needing to be accomplished in a short time means that IVCS’s development and implementation must proceed at top speed in the coming months.
Conclusion
The IVCS web site can be developed as a host for a network of inter-connected voter-driven political organizations (voting blocs and electoral coalitions) to counter the influence of money in politics, including the cognitive distortions created by special interests using big money to frame debates and constantly introduce distractions from key issues. The network will provide a meta-level of political interaction that places ecological constraints on the current system so that it is driven back towards a condition in which the ability of individuals to both arrive at more accurate constructions of reality, and act on these constructions is dominant.
In the first quote above from The Age of Fallibility, George Soros identifies what is probably the most important cause of the movement away from open society and towards plutocracy, namely the deliberate manipulation of voters’ perceptions of reality. IVCS will be a powerful counter to this technology of political manipulation. By introducing a transparent, inclusive layer of networked social interaction, insulated from mass media manipulation, emphasizing problem solving and critical evaluation, and giving rise to legislative mandates backed by very large and powerful voting blocs and electoral coalitions, we can introduce open society epistemological and political controls into our electoral and political processes and make our representatives accountable once again. We can enable voters themselves to reverse the movement of the United States toward plutocracy, and move it in the direction of open society once more.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Legalization activists in Philly are going to be protesting at the Thanksgiving Parade -- perhaps attempting to march in it!
From Facebook:
Thursday, November 25 · 8:30am - 12:00pm
Location We are meeting at the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art
More Info Every year the Thanksgiving Day Parade has a theme. This year the people of Philadelphia and the Pro-Marijuana movement are going to show up in numbers and create our own theme.
Instead of standing on the sidelines and watching the parade, this year we decided to be part of the show.
We are fighting a battle to legalize marijuana and as (non-violent) soldiers in this war, we will use every opportunity to use our 1st Amendment right to stand up for what we believe in.
Every media outlet in the tri-state area will be there with cameras, let's let Philadelphia and the nation know that WE ARE HERE and WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!!!
STRENGTH IN NUMBERS, TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!
Thursday, November 25 · 8:30am - 12:00pm
Location We are meeting at the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art
More Info Every year the Thanksgiving Day Parade has a theme. This year the people of Philadelphia and the Pro-Marijuana movement are going to show up in numbers and create our own theme.
Instead of standing on the sidelines and watching the parade, this year we decided to be part of the show.
We are fighting a battle to legalize marijuana and as (non-violent) soldiers in this war, we will use every opportunity to use our 1st Amendment right to stand up for what we believe in.
Every media outlet in the tri-state area will be there with cameras, let's let Philadelphia and the nation know that WE ARE HERE and WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!!!
STRENGTH IN NUMBERS, TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
WHO HAS THE POWER? ~ A Continuation of MMJ Stakeholders' Meeting Tropical Brainstorm
This being a continuation of a list of ideas volunteered by participants at the Massachusetts Medical Marijuana Stakeholders' Meeting in Boston on November 13th, that lucky day that the movement took another step forward.
The question put forward was, "Who has the power to change the medical marijuana law?"
Reps on the state level
Senators & Congresspeople on the Federal level in DC
The Gov (signs bills into law)
Lobbyists
Selectpersons at the town level
DeLeo (speaker of the house)
Voters
Donors
Special Interests
Law Enforcement
Advocates
Volunteers
Medical Community
Media
Economics Drive this issue in part
State Agencies
Universities
Ballot Measure
Republicans (?) created it to subvert State leg. driven change
Ballot measures are won by money (!)
(because $$ buys advertising)
More expensive to pass ballot measure (than what?)
Dr Karen Munkacy specializes in anaesthesiology and pain management. She's licensed to practice in Massachusetts and California, where she recommends medicinal marijuana for patients, having become convinced of its efficacy after reading current medical literature on the subject. She expressed regret to the Stakeholders' group that she cannot legally prescribe it in Massachusetts, and that even a written recommendation from an MD still does not legally protect her patients here if they dare to use it, because of politics, not lack of proof that it is medicine.
Someone recommended the book, The Other Brain to me
For some reason when I jotted the title, I also wrote NIMH, will have to google
Back to the Brainstorm- Who Holds Power?
Voters
Donors
Party Leaders (can make MMJ a plank on the party platform?)
Interest groups
Polls
Expert Witnesses
Media
Families
Friends
Personal Experiences
Colleagues
calls
letters
teach ins
forums
WRITE LETTERS to EDITORS
Citizen Lobbyists develop ongoing, personal relationships with their reps
Visit their offices,Dress like them (heehee!)
Consistent message Prepared
represent an Educated Constituent Base
ASK: Are you willing...
Goal: sign onto and sponsor med mar bill
ASA on Youtube, has citizen lobbyist workshops on video
Petitions
Campaign Events
Plank on Party Platforms
Delegates Introduce Idea to
Panel discussions
Tabling Conventions
Party Events
Hearings
Civil Disobedience
Coalition of MDs & patients to start up infrastructure
Escalation of Tactics
Resources
Ordering Priorities
Identify:
Opponents
Fence Sitters
advocates>>> allies>>> champions
127 people facing federal prosecution right now for mmj
Media
Earned media-- event that brings press
state house events bring media
social media internet (flashmob?)
Actions
Fundraisers
Press Conference
Community Events
Editorial Board meetings- invite newspaper editors
TV stations
Media Outlets
Press Releases educate & inform
There's more!
... to be continued
State Senator Creem will co-sponsor a bill for legalization in Massachusetts!
Saturday, November 20, 2010 2:31 PM
But she needs a main sponsor:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1270134266/Sen-still-supports-marijuana-legalization-but-won-t-be-in-charge-of-the-bill
We've got to work on Stan Rosenberg and Ellen Story. Dick, you hear that!
Everyone else in the Amherst area please write and call them! (Those elsewhere in the state, please contact your own State Rep & State Senator about co-sponsoring any forthcoming legalization bill, regardless of which committees they are on)
Sen Stan Rosenberg:
Stan.Rosenberg@masenate.gov
617-722-1532
State Rep Ellen Story:
Ellen.Story@mahouse.gov
617-722-2012
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1270134266/Sen-still-supports-marijuana-legalization-but-won-t-be-in-charge-of-the-bill
We've got to work on Stan Rosenberg and Ellen Story. Dick, you hear that!
Everyone else in the Amherst area please write and call them! (Those elsewhere in the state, please contact your own State Rep & State Senator about co-sponsoring any forthcoming legalization bill, regardless of which committees they are on)
Sen Stan Rosenberg:
Stan.Rosenberg@masenate.gov
617-722-1532
State Rep Ellen Story:
Ellen.Story@mahouse.gov
617-722-2012
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Daily Machine: Introducing the Sticky Greens; They’re Good For You
— by NormanB (“Deviations from the Norm”)
Announcing a new Green Party Caucus identity group working to Legalize Marijuana & end discrimination against its users, to promote the economic and environmental benefits of Cannabis Hemp, and to convince the Green Party of the United States to fully embrace and promote these priciples.
Today I renounce my lifelong membership in the Democratic Party, recognizing that what has been my Party increasingly panders to corporate elitists and, in serving as shill to those donors, works against the principles I hold dear. How much money would I need in order to have enough to bribe the Party leaders to turn honest? And even that wouldn’t work, because I don’t want Party leadership that responds so disgracefully to money. What I want politically is peace, freedom, human rights, economic justice, environmental protection, and honesty & accountability in Government. With the move I make today I hope to further these goals.
Here we stand at the precipice: Albert Camus’ existential dilemma as described in The Myth of Sisyphus: The most important philosophical question is Should I commit suicide? because, if the answer is Yes, then the other questions are irrelevant. Ignorance on climate issues is such a valued commodity that the US has advanced in this important field to Number One in the world. In many African countries and island nations, 90% of the populace knows how we get Global Warming. In the US, more than 100,000,000 people doubt the science. That confusion helps fossil fuel and chemical companies profiteer off pollution and market extinctions that will include our own, if we don’t stop climate change. The current Administration ignores the climate emergency: After promising responsible conscientious environmental stewardship, it has instead allowed increased emissions of every Greenhouse Gas, and has had its Environmental Protection Agency officially lie about Coal and Nuclear Power, reclassifying them as “Clean Energy.” President Obama this week endorsed corporate-sponsored superstition over science: He declared that he intends to fight Global Warming without limiting any Greenhouse Gases. But the fact is: Greenhouse Gases cause Global Warming: By increasing emissions of every Greenhouse Gas, we Cause Global Warming, not Fight it.
Sunday I attended the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party (GRP) Convention in Worcester. Because I was not a member of the Green Party, my name placard wasn’t colored green. GRP 2010 Gubernatorial nominee Jill Stein, co-chair of the state Party, asked me what she could do to change my placard to green. I do very much agree with Dr. Stein and Green Party concensus on issues. And during her campaign she spoke thoughtfully and forcefully about Legalization. Much more than other political candidates, she favors protecting my civil rights, as a medical user, as a religious user, and as a recreational user. In our informal group from Western Mass’s Pioneer Valley, I saw tireless hard-working dedicated activists in it for the long haul, committed to improving our country and our planet. I have long respected the work of a majority of individuals in the circle. These Are My People. I do belong.
100,000,000 US citizens have smoked Marijuana. The Democratic and Republican Parties do not want our votes. The Greens and Libertarians do want them, but no Party is doing what it takes to get them. Our campaign for Legalizing Marijuana carried 75% of the vote in Amherst, 65% statewide. Gubernatorial candidate Jill Stein only got 1.43% statewide. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Massachusetts are shedding members: Independents now outnumber both Parties in the state. 70% of people nationwide have said they don’t trust Democrats and 80% don’t trust Republicans. If only those two-thirds of Massachusetts citizens demanding Marijuana reform saw the Greens as allies, we’d control elections in this state. But people in the Marijuana/Cannabis/Hemp movement largely see the Greens as irrelevant, and are unaware of that plank in the Party’s official platform calling for Legalization of Medical Marijuana and protection of its patients.
Now, we the Green Party, stand at the precipice. Should we commit suicide? The Hemp movement is our natural constituency and its voters make up two-thirds of the state’s electorate. Most of us in the Hemp movement see the Greens as not caring about our rights or the rights of patients suffering and dying from lack of access to medicine. Greens are also seen as lacking important knowledge on the economic and environmental realities surrounding Cannabis Hemp, and in some cases are perceived as lacking working knowledge of Global Warming science needed to talk to certain voters. The Sticky Greens hope to correct these problems, by including on our homepage primers on the science, economics, and bigotry encountered by Hempsters.
At the Convention, our local Greens generated a list of concerns we can work on together locally that were cited in our circle. I made the first suggestion on the list, Legalilzing Marijuana. When emailed copies of the list of concerns arrived, I saw that Marijuana is included, at the end, separated from everything else, looking like an afterthought. This is the prescription for our Party’s extinction. The 20 items on the list above Marijuana all added together can get us 1.43% of the vote. Marijuana gets us 65% statewide and in Boston, 75% in Amherst, 82% nextdoor in Pelham, and 80% in nearby Wendell. I urge Pioneer Valley Greens, the entire Mass GRP, and Greens across the country to learn the language of Hemp activism immediately. And I urge the Green Party of the United States Accreditation Committee to quickly approve and accept our Caucus, as soon as we meet the requirements. We have a spectacular opportunity.
Shortly I’ll go downtown to re-register to vote, this time as a member of the Green-Rainbow Party. I’m posting these ideas to my firedoglake.com Diary blog The Daily Machine, and to MaMaMoJo, which is my partner Rachel Neulander’s non-commercial Massachusetts Marijuana Movement Journal. Beginning today, MaMaMoJournal’s left column is the Sticky Greens homepage. It will include political, historical, and scientific information about Cannabis and its integral relation to energy, climate, food production, health, human rights, and honesty in politics and business. We’ll note its relationship to LGBTIQ issues and racism. Most importantly, we’ll show how science can stop and reverse Global Warming using existing technology, and do it in time if we start right away.
I’m also sending it to our local Greens circle, to Jill Stein and her campaign staff with whom I worked, and to the Accreditation Committee of the Green Party of the United States. The Sticky Greens will quickly become an official local Green-Rainbow Party group when three of us agree to form it. To get Accreditted as a Green Caucus, better able to affect national Party policy, we’ll need 100 members spread throughout 15 states. Reaching 100 members seems easier than reaching 15 states. We’ll try.
To join the Sticky Greens just email shamanslibrary@yahoo.com & display “join” in the Subject window, and you will receive an email newsletter. But joining the Sticky Greens Caucus identity group of the Green Party of the United States requires a little more: (1) Email shamanslibrary@yahoo.com & display “caucus” in the Subject window; (2) if you are not a member of the GPUS, register to vote as a Green Party member within 7 days; and (3) in your email to shamanslibrary, include all of the following info that’s applicable: Your email address, your phone number, your name, your mailing address, and your voting address. Let's have a Party!
I have been a political activist fulltime without pay for decades, having consciously decided in 1978 to dedicate my life to the unending push for human rights, environmental integrity, economic equality, art, and culture. In the early 1990s I toured the country with the Cannabis Action Network at early Hemp Rallies on the early Hemp Tours. In that function I performed and spoke at rallies in 20 or more states, and at 30 or more colleges. Coming off tour, still in the early 1990s, I founded SPACE: The St. Petersburg [Florida] Alliance for Cannabis Emancipation. Two years and five Hemp Rallies later, we disbanded the group having achieved our objective: Educating the press and public on the issue: By our fifth Rally, both our local middle-of-the-road newspapers (the St. Petersburg Times & Tampa Tribune) published editorials favoring complete Legalization. That was in a Republican-majority city in conservative Florida. One of my fellow activists in the Massachusetts Hemp movement, John Leonard, did a study recently showing how Hemp voters can be influenced to vote for issues and Parties they knew little about. We saw how it worked at our state convention, where Katelyn Golsby was the first speaker of the Party’s Campus Leaders. I had met Katelyn and her friend Eric Cameron at the local busstop and invited them to the Rock Opera I wrote and was soon to perform at the University of Massachusetts in an event sponsored by the Cannabis Reform Coalition there. Jill Stein spoke to begin the event, then took questions. Katelyn and Eric left carrying Jill Stein campaign signs. The Rock Opera was the most attended Jill Stein event of the entire autumn campaign. And as one student activist pointed out, we’d have had ten times as many attendees if we’d had two weeks to promote it.
Some other time I’ll discuss why the column is called “The Daily Machine.”
Announcing a new Green Party Caucus identity group working to Legalize Marijuana & end discrimination against its users, to promote the economic and environmental benefits of Cannabis Hemp, and to convince the Green Party of the United States to fully embrace and promote these priciples.
Today I renounce my lifelong membership in the Democratic Party, recognizing that what has been my Party increasingly panders to corporate elitists and, in serving as shill to those donors, works against the principles I hold dear. How much money would I need in order to have enough to bribe the Party leaders to turn honest? And even that wouldn’t work, because I don’t want Party leadership that responds so disgracefully to money. What I want politically is peace, freedom, human rights, economic justice, environmental protection, and honesty & accountability in Government. With the move I make today I hope to further these goals.
Here we stand at the precipice: Albert Camus’ existential dilemma as described in The Myth of Sisyphus: The most important philosophical question is Should I commit suicide? because, if the answer is Yes, then the other questions are irrelevant. Ignorance on climate issues is such a valued commodity that the US has advanced in this important field to Number One in the world. In many African countries and island nations, 90% of the populace knows how we get Global Warming. In the US, more than 100,000,000 people doubt the science. That confusion helps fossil fuel and chemical companies profiteer off pollution and market extinctions that will include our own, if we don’t stop climate change. The current Administration ignores the climate emergency: After promising responsible conscientious environmental stewardship, it has instead allowed increased emissions of every Greenhouse Gas, and has had its Environmental Protection Agency officially lie about Coal and Nuclear Power, reclassifying them as “Clean Energy.” President Obama this week endorsed corporate-sponsored superstition over science: He declared that he intends to fight Global Warming without limiting any Greenhouse Gases. But the fact is: Greenhouse Gases cause Global Warming: By increasing emissions of every Greenhouse Gas, we Cause Global Warming, not Fight it.
Sunday I attended the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party (GRP) Convention in Worcester. Because I was not a member of the Green Party, my name placard wasn’t colored green. GRP 2010 Gubernatorial nominee Jill Stein, co-chair of the state Party, asked me what she could do to change my placard to green. I do very much agree with Dr. Stein and Green Party concensus on issues. And during her campaign she spoke thoughtfully and forcefully about Legalization. Much more than other political candidates, she favors protecting my civil rights, as a medical user, as a religious user, and as a recreational user. In our informal group from Western Mass’s Pioneer Valley, I saw tireless hard-working dedicated activists in it for the long haul, committed to improving our country and our planet. I have long respected the work of a majority of individuals in the circle. These Are My People. I do belong.
100,000,000 US citizens have smoked Marijuana. The Democratic and Republican Parties do not want our votes. The Greens and Libertarians do want them, but no Party is doing what it takes to get them. Our campaign for Legalizing Marijuana carried 75% of the vote in Amherst, 65% statewide. Gubernatorial candidate Jill Stein only got 1.43% statewide. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties in Massachusetts are shedding members: Independents now outnumber both Parties in the state. 70% of people nationwide have said they don’t trust Democrats and 80% don’t trust Republicans. If only those two-thirds of Massachusetts citizens demanding Marijuana reform saw the Greens as allies, we’d control elections in this state. But people in the Marijuana/Cannabis/Hemp movement largely see the Greens as irrelevant, and are unaware of that plank in the Party’s official platform calling for Legalization of Medical Marijuana and protection of its patients.
Now, we the Green Party, stand at the precipice. Should we commit suicide? The Hemp movement is our natural constituency and its voters make up two-thirds of the state’s electorate. Most of us in the Hemp movement see the Greens as not caring about our rights or the rights of patients suffering and dying from lack of access to medicine. Greens are also seen as lacking important knowledge on the economic and environmental realities surrounding Cannabis Hemp, and in some cases are perceived as lacking working knowledge of Global Warming science needed to talk to certain voters. The Sticky Greens hope to correct these problems, by including on our homepage primers on the science, economics, and bigotry encountered by Hempsters.
At the Convention, our local Greens generated a list of concerns we can work on together locally that were cited in our circle. I made the first suggestion on the list, Legalilzing Marijuana. When emailed copies of the list of concerns arrived, I saw that Marijuana is included, at the end, separated from everything else, looking like an afterthought. This is the prescription for our Party’s extinction. The 20 items on the list above Marijuana all added together can get us 1.43% of the vote. Marijuana gets us 65% statewide and in Boston, 75% in Amherst, 82% nextdoor in Pelham, and 80% in nearby Wendell. I urge Pioneer Valley Greens, the entire Mass GRP, and Greens across the country to learn the language of Hemp activism immediately. And I urge the Green Party of the United States Accreditation Committee to quickly approve and accept our Caucus, as soon as we meet the requirements. We have a spectacular opportunity.
Shortly I’ll go downtown to re-register to vote, this time as a member of the Green-Rainbow Party. I’m posting these ideas to my firedoglake.com Diary blog The Daily Machine, and to MaMaMoJo, which is my partner Rachel Neulander’s non-commercial Massachusetts Marijuana Movement Journal. Beginning today, MaMaMoJournal’s left column is the Sticky Greens homepage. It will include political, historical, and scientific information about Cannabis and its integral relation to energy, climate, food production, health, human rights, and honesty in politics and business. We’ll note its relationship to LGBTIQ issues and racism. Most importantly, we’ll show how science can stop and reverse Global Warming using existing technology, and do it in time if we start right away.
I’m also sending it to our local Greens circle, to Jill Stein and her campaign staff with whom I worked, and to the Accreditation Committee of the Green Party of the United States. The Sticky Greens will quickly become an official local Green-Rainbow Party group when three of us agree to form it. To get Accreditted as a Green Caucus, better able to affect national Party policy, we’ll need 100 members spread throughout 15 states. Reaching 100 members seems easier than reaching 15 states. We’ll try.
To join the Sticky Greens just email shamanslibrary@yahoo.com & display “join” in the Subject window, and you will receive an email newsletter. But joining the Sticky Greens Caucus identity group of the Green Party of the United States requires a little more: (1) Email shamanslibrary@yahoo.com & display “caucus” in the Subject window; (2) if you are not a member of the GPUS, register to vote as a Green Party member within 7 days; and (3) in your email to shamanslibrary, include all of the following info that’s applicable: Your email address, your phone number, your name, your mailing address, and your voting address. Let's have a Party!
I have been a political activist fulltime without pay for decades, having consciously decided in 1978 to dedicate my life to the unending push for human rights, environmental integrity, economic equality, art, and culture. In the early 1990s I toured the country with the Cannabis Action Network at early Hemp Rallies on the early Hemp Tours. In that function I performed and spoke at rallies in 20 or more states, and at 30 or more colleges. Coming off tour, still in the early 1990s, I founded SPACE: The St. Petersburg [Florida] Alliance for Cannabis Emancipation. Two years and five Hemp Rallies later, we disbanded the group having achieved our objective: Educating the press and public on the issue: By our fifth Rally, both our local middle-of-the-road newspapers (the St. Petersburg Times & Tampa Tribune) published editorials favoring complete Legalization. That was in a Republican-majority city in conservative Florida. One of my fellow activists in the Massachusetts Hemp movement, John Leonard, did a study recently showing how Hemp voters can be influenced to vote for issues and Parties they knew little about. We saw how it worked at our state convention, where Katelyn Golsby was the first speaker of the Party’s Campus Leaders. I had met Katelyn and her friend Eric Cameron at the local busstop and invited them to the Rock Opera I wrote and was soon to perform at the University of Massachusetts in an event sponsored by the Cannabis Reform Coalition there. Jill Stein spoke to begin the event, then took questions. Katelyn and Eric left carrying Jill Stein campaign signs. The Rock Opera was the most attended Jill Stein event of the entire autumn campaign. And as one student activist pointed out, we’d have had ten times as many attendees if we’d had two weeks to promote it.
Some other time I’ll discuss why the column is called “The Daily Machine.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)