Testifying in Support of House, No

Testifying in support of House Bill No. 2247 (See Senate Bill No. 944)

A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government. The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the commonwealth.

Article XVIII, A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Chairpersons Fargo and Koutoujian, Honorable members of the committee,

December 31 will mark the sixteenth anniversary since the passage of the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act and still not one patient has been certified to participate in the research program nor been able to use marihuana legally. Where once Massachusetts was first in passing legislation concerning the medical use of cannabis, we are now behind our neighbors in Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont and way behind Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington all permit patients and caregivers to grow the medicine they need without fear of state criminal prosecution. Maryland permits the medical necessity defense, we don’t even permit that!

The Public Policy Question election results from 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 demonstrate your constituents favor the legislation you hear about today.

The legislation you are hearing about today creates legal protection from state prosecution for patients with a written recommendation from their doctor and their caregivers approved by the Department of Public Health to possess and grow their own medicine.

Some of you may be concerned about the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that refused to prevent the Federal Government from prosecuting people who were in compliance with their state’s laws when it came to their use, possession and cultivation of marijuana. This should not be a concern. Your approval of this legislation does not put you at risk of federal prosecution.

Justice Stevens in his decision speaks of the need for political will on Capital Hill, if the law is to change. The Massachusetts delegation in the House of Representatives are leaders in this regard.

Members of the delegation have sponsored legislation to stop the federal raids and except for Mr. Lynch, all other members of the Massachusetts delegation voted in favor of prohibiting the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws in each of the past five years. House Roll Call No. 420, 108th Congress, 1st Session; House Roll Call No. 334, 108th Congress, 2nd Session; House Roll Call No. 255, 109th Congress, 1st Session; Roll Call No. 333, 109th Congress, 2nd Session and House Roll Call No. 255, 110th Congress, 1st Session. In October we visited most of your offices and left you a booklet titled “Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids - A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 — 2006.” As the science grows the pace of discovery grows and this past year has witnessed an

This committee and all other members of the General Court should now recognize that it is the will of the people that the Commonwealth should not be punishing persons who use marijuana as a medicine under the supervision of health care professional.

By enacting the legislation before you, you not only relieve the stress medical users face from being prosecuted by the Commonwealth, you further express the sentiment of your constituents to Congress. MMJ PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION RESULTS ‘00—’06 YES NO % YES YR KEY Fourth Barnstable 14,315 8,804 62% ‘00 1 Fourteenth Worcester 6,717 4,197 62% ‘02 1 Third Berkshire 10,909 4,173 72% ‘04 2 Twenty-fourth Middlesex 14,551 4,705 76% ‘04 2 Sixth Norfolk 10,791 4,506 71% ‘04 2 Seventh Plymouth 13,784 5,902 70% ‘04 2 Seventh Norfolk 8,389 4,820 64% ‘06 2 SENATE DISTRICTS Worcester & Norfolk 48,739 22,611 68% ‘04 2 Third Middlesex 37,432 18,505 67% ‘06 2

TOTALS ‘00 –’06 86,171 127,287 68% KEY: Shall the (Representative or Senator) from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation… (1) that would allow patients with certain diseases, who have a written doctor’s recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use, until such time as the federal government puts into place an effective distribution system for these patients? (2) that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctors written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use? Finally, in weighing legislation, please strive to fulfill the ideals of John Adams and the people of Massachusetts when they adopted the Great Charter of 1780 wherein it was proclaimed:

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural rights, and the blessings of life: . . . . among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness . . . . .

It is our sincere hope and we do trust, that this committee will, after “recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, [that] are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government. . . . “ as admonished in Article XVIII of the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts, recommend passage of H 2247.

Respectfully submitted,