As of July 1 of this year, twenty-three states and the District of Colombia have legalized medical marijuana and New York is one of those states (medicalmarijuana.procon.org). The bill was approved and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on July 5, 2014. Nonetheless, medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law thus leaving patients and providers vulnerable to arrest, even if they are in compliance with their state laws. Since marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule 1 drug,
"federal law restricts medical marijuana research as well as fair and safe financial services for medical marijuana-related businesses" (gillibrand.senate.gov).
Last week, Senator Gillibrand spoke at the National Cannabis Industry Association meeting in New York and told industry professionals she is pushing a bipartisan bill she cosponsored last March with Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) that would move marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule II drug so it can be recognized as having a medical purpose. The legislation would also recognize each state's right to enact its own laws on medical marijuana. The bill (S.683) is called the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act of 2015 or the CARERS Act. The bill was introduced back in March of this year, has been read twice and now has been recommended to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Gillibrand's involvement in this bill is interesting for several reasons. Besides Gillibrand, there are four other female cosponsors of the bill (out of 15) in the Senate and four female cosponsors in the House (out of 16) of the 2o women in the Senate and 86 women in the House. Maybe there is a fairly large number of female support for this legislation because it deals with an issue that is usually considered to be 'women's issue' since it concerns health care. Gillibrand went to talk with several families and veterans to get their perspective on the legislation. It is also important to take into account party interests. This legislation is aimed at helping veterans and families who most likely have a low socio-economic status and would increase access to medical marijuana. This legislation also highlights the importance of states rights over the rights of the federal government. Each of these two issues appeals to either Democrats and Republicans, respectively. Which is why both the bills in the Senate and the House have bipartisan support. This bill offers the perfect example of ways to compromise for both Democrats and Republicans, so hopefully we will see some progress in the Congress.
Sources:
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881
http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/issues/medical-marijuana
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/03/8564095/gillibrand-booker-tout-medical-marijuana-bill
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/683
1 comment:
It is certainly interesting that the bill, title the "Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act of 2015" does not mention marijuana in its title at all. Perhaps, much like the "Women's Public Health and Safety Act," it masks part of its purpose under a flashy title to make it more digestible to the public. There is still a decent amount of opposition to marijuana—medical and recreational—and so the bill's sponsors are likely attempting to reclassify medical marijuana without making the general public instantly aware that they are doing so. I briefly discussed marijuana legalization this week in my post, which was about the 2016 U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. One of the fringe candidates, John Fetterman, has made marijuana legalization part of his platform, which is likely to work against him in a state that still has a decent conservative population. I wonder if it is easier for Senators & Representatives to push for marijuana legalization (medical and not) after being elected as opposed to making it a major part of their platform while still campaigning. If Gillibrand had done this, would she have been elected? I just looked at her personal campaign site, and it does not mention marijuana anywhere in her "Issues" section. This demonstrates, indeed, that the U.S., generally, is likely not ready to elect candidates who explicitly advocate for marijuana legalization. However, once elected, perhaps they are able to push for such legislation.
Post a Comment