Ld1296

I am pretty clueless at navigating the state website but i can find no indication that it would brought to the floor of either the House or the Senate anytime soon. OTOH, i know that the legislature is due to close fairly soon so it should be seeing some action in the near future.
 
I just called the State House to get a status on the bill. I didn't learn much, but they did say that it is still in committee, awaiting an amendment. I don't know what the amendment is, nor is there any info on it on the web site.

I called because the session ends by statute in 5 days. That can be extended though, a couple times. It is quite common. I asked if it looked like the bill was going to die in committee and not make it to the floor by session end, and the lady said no..it doesn't look like that at all. Just waiting for that amendment, whatever it is.

That's all I know about it.
 
Ah, a group of 'Mainers' ;)


I love ppl from Maine. I dated a girl from there about 4 or 5 years ago. Most beautiful girl I had ever seen.. had the face of an angel. Her eyes would just lock up with mine.. and it was like I would go into another dimension/world when I looked into her eyes. Unfortunately it didn't work out between us.. for lots of reasons. One being that I think she was pregnant when we were dating/going out... which makes me look like a fucking fool!! I was even giving her a second chance.. but she eventually, after about 8 months of dating.. called it quits saying that it just wasn't working out.

Long distant relationships are very flakey and not worth the stress and anxiety. Plus, I mean.. unless you significant other is deployed with the military or otherwise, what's the use in even trying a long distance relationship when you can't even hug/kiss or hold each others hand.. can't cuddle with your significant other.. just not worth it IMO.

But yeah, man.. she's still the most beautiful girl I've personally ever laid eyes on. That's straight from the heart too.. :)

Gladys R. Lanpher - man.. what a women!

peace
 
I think the Amendment has to do with exapanding the list of qualifying conditions - i know that heard a report on MPBN about the bill where the AMA was objecting to the legislation because cannabis could be recommended for any condition but that they dropped their objection when a compromise was reached over expanding, rather than elimination, the list. As of yet, i've been unable to find this expanded list anywhere - so it probably doesn't exist as yet.

I have to say, i'm not optimistic about passage in this session. This has languished for more than a month with apparently nobody working on it. I'm expecting it to quietly die at the end of the legislature with nothing being changed, leaving patients at the mercy of MDEA to do the right thing.
 
Maine Brookies said:
I think the Amendment has to do with exapanding the list of qualifying conditions - i know that heard a report on MPBN about the bill where the AMA was objecting to the legislation because cannabis could be recommended for any condition but that they dropped their objection when a compromise was reached over expanding, rather than elimination, the list. As of yet, i've been unable to find this expanded list anywhere - so it probably doesn't exist as yet.

I have to say, i'm not optimistic about passage in this session. This has languished for more than a month with apparently nobody working on it. I'm expecting it to quietly die at the end of the legislature with nothing being changed, leaving patients at the mercy of MDEA to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that the AMA is supportive, and in fact doesn't want it limited to any set conditions (the compromise notwithstanding). That's cool.

I thought the same thing about the impending close of session, etc. That's why I called them. The woman I spoke to did not have detailed information about what is going on, but that it is active. She said one should not assume at all that it is dead. Lots happens behind the scenes if you will, and apparently does not get updated on the web site every day. I remember that with the original legislation. I watched very closely every day and nothing was happening. Next thing you know, we got a law.
 
tet1953 said:
So, you're saying that the AMA is supportive, and in fact doesn't want it limited to any set conditions (the compromise notwithstanding). That's cool.
Click to expand...

No, the original bill removed the all restrictions. IIRC, the MMA balked at that but agreed to support the bill if the list of qualifying conditions was expanded but not if it was removed altogether. So, i'm guessing that the expanded list is the amendment in question.
 
Cool, looks like it's passed the House, sent over to the Senate which is awaiting concurrence on the committee report if I read things right. Anyway, seems likely to pass. No idea if LePage will sign it, has there been any indication of that?

I've been reading it over and just noticed something in the definitions. Under "Prepared marijuana" they added the phrase "that require no further processing". An attempt to close the loophole on hash perhaps?
 
Ok so the Senate passed it. The House previously passed it. So why does the Press Herald say that it faces more votes in the House and Senate?
 
Ok I called and here's what's happenin. There was an amendment as you know. The amendment cleared the committee of both House and Senate. Then it gets what's called engrossed, which means there's a dept that makes sure all the language is correct, incorporates the amendment into the bill, and prints it. Then each side of the legislature votes on the entire bill. The House has already done so, passed. Sent to Senate for concurrence, probably today.
 
I see that it as approved but My question is, Will PTSD be put on the list of conditions. I have not found or seen any expanded list yet could you please give us an update on that????
 
I'm not sure that they have actually added conditions. I've been scouring through the statute and amendment and from what I can see what they have done is streamline the process for adding conditions. They got rid of the advisory board and instead direct DHHS to adopt rules whereby they will take petitions from the public on adding conditions. The Commissioner then approves or denies said petition(s).

It looks like in the amendment they removed the added amount that one may possess. In other words, it's back to 2.5 ounces.

They have clarified what was implied in the law already regarding the number of non-flowering plants one can have. It's pretty much unlimited, although I would personally not approach the federal 99 plant threshold.

I'll be looking forward to what others have to say about the final product as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

emepher
Get out the vote!
Replies
12
Views
2K
Midwestsmoker419
M
chex1111
Health Canada reports "concerning increase in homegrown cannabis"
9 10 11
Replies
219
Views
26K
ComfortCreator
C
vostok
Colorado Is Auctioning Marijuana-Themed License Plates
Replies
7
Views
835
HGCC
HGCC
chex1111
Kirk Tousaw open letter to Health Canada
Replies
6
Views
2K
Egzoset
Egzoset
Dalek Supreme
"Jesus Certainly Existed" Three Reasons To Be Skeptical
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
15K
Dalek Supreme
Dalek Supreme
Back
Top