VT Medical Marijuana Dispensary Information Center
Members only Patient focused medical cannabis education and information providers - by
patients, for patients.
If you have any questions regarding the Vermont Registry program, feel free to contact us or the state through their official website. Both links available on this website. We are an independent group of registered Vermont patients with no official affiliation with the VT State Registry program.
Announcing the second meeting of the VMMA in Burlington, scheduled to take place on Thursday May 30th, 2013 at 108 Cherry Street in Burlington, VT. The meeting is open to the public and will begin at 12:00 noon in conference room 2B. Additional details will be provided to individuals who provide us an email address via the contact page on this website. Scroll down for more information about the VMMA.
4/8/2013 - if you go to the VT legislative bill tracking system here, you will find no less than six bills having to do with Vermonts marijuana laws. While it is late in the session it is never too late to contact your elected representatives so they know where you stand on these issues. Vermont is one of the easiest states to contact your elected representatives in, so don't let inexperience or any other excuse keep you from voicing your opinion on these issues which are very important to EVERYONE in the state, even if they themselves are not affected by archaic drug laws, someone in every family is. No one is unaffected by these laws, so do your part and contact your elected representatives NOW. If you are not sure where to start, just drop us an email and we'll be glad to point you in the right direction for your particular situation and comfort level, to the best of our ability, based on decades of experience in the statehouse by numerous members, in many different capacities. Thank you.
The Vermont Medical Marijuana Association
The Vermont Medical Marijuana Association has been created. We exist to provide a support platform for any legally registered medical marijuana patient in Vermont. The purpose of this Association is as follows:1) There is political power and economic power in numbers. It is in our own best interest to have representation collectively.
2) There is help to be had. Imagine meeting and getting to know other patients in your area. What a boon it would be to be able to pick the brains of other patients and learn from one another.
3) Current statute makes it difficult if not impossible to maintain adequate access to a reliable supply of medicine. While we are committed to following both the letter and intent of the law, education cannot be suppressed, and benefits everyone.
4) As an Association we can work to make the law more equitable for the work and efforts of our hard-working registered caregivers, and also to help get this much needed medicine to our Veterans, and to work to remove the stigma physicians experience when asked to allow a patient to use cannabis as therapy.
5) There will be an annual fee. That amount is to be determined. The funds will initially be used to set up the Association, i.e. printing costs, advertising in local newspapers, memberships with other organizations, events, charity fund raisers, etc
6) How do I learn more or volunteer? Just contact us through the contact tab above.
Tips for Successful Marijuana registry program applicants
The Medical Marijuana Registry may return application packets and forms due to easily preventable mistakes. Below is a checklist to help you avoid delays in your application or forms approval.
**Note: This program is for Vermont Residents ONLY!
1. Use the current version of application and other forms. Use the latest forms on the official state website here: http://vcic.vermont.gov/marijuana_registry
2. You will be responsible for completing most of the form. However, part of the form will need to be completed by your health care provider. Your health care provider must be licensed to practice in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts or New York in order to complete the form.
After all sections of the form are completed you will need to have it notarized.
You are also required to provide a digital photograph of yourself for your Marijuana Registry Identification Card. Mail the completed form (faxes are not acceptable) along with the other required items to the Vermont Marijuana Registry at the address provided on the form. Fill forms out completely. Write neatly, or complete online and print copies.
3. If you make a mistake, complete a new form. Do not cross-out, write-over or use white-out to correct information.
4. Sign and date forms in front of a Vermont notary.
a. The notary is not the caregiver, patient’s physician or person signing the form of payment.
b. The dates of your signature and the notary’s signature should be the same.
5. A (non-refundable) patient and /or a separate caregiver fee is required, include a form of payment as required by instructions. The fee must be paid by check or money order.
a. Make the check or money order out to Vermont Department of Public Safety.
b. The patient’s name must be on the form of payment.
c. Verify the check or money order is made out for the correct amount.
d. If using a check, the Registry does not accept temporary checks.
If a caregiver is listed on your form, include a copy of the caregiver’s application and separate caregiver fee.
7. Incomplete forms or application packets will be rejected and returned to you. Completed application packets include:
a. Registered patient application form
b. Physicians Verification Form
d. If a caregiver is listed, a copy of the caregiver’s application.
e A check or money order to cover fees as per instructions.
8. Submit forms and all supporting paperwork to the Registry in the same envelope. The Registry cannot match items sent separately.
9. Send all forms within the required timeframe. Applications must be received at the Registry within 60 days of the physician’s signature on the Physicians Certification. All other forms must be received within 10 days of the notary’s signature.
Mail the digital media and all completed forms to:
Department of Public Safety
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont 05671
You may want to consider sending your application via certified mail or delivering your application in person if possible. Feel free to contact us at any point in the application process.
President Obama has finally spoken about the marijuana legalization ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington.
He said he does not -- “at this point” -- support widespread legalization of marijuana. But, more importantly, he said there is a “need to have...a conversation”. For the first time ever, he is framing the conflict between federal and state law as a question to be resolved as opposed to one in which it is simply assumed that federal marijuana prohibition trumps all.
He also said that the federal government has “bigger fish to fry” than to waste resources on possession and suggested that Congress should compromise with the states on the issue.
Obama knows he is confronted with a dilemma and has, at last, acknowledged that it’s time for a conversation. Let’s take him up on his offer.
Urge President Obama not to interfere with marijuana legalization and to call for a change in federal law.
Although Obama’s comments sound promising, he didn’t say that the federal government will leave state-regulated marijuana cultivators, distributors or sellers alone.
The Obama administration is on the verge of issuing a major position statement on marijuana legalization -- and Obama’s history on medical marijuana offers important insights. Even though Obama pledged not to use federal resources to prosecute medical marijuana patients, the federal government has still raided and prosecuted medical marijuana providers, undermining state efforts to responsibly regulate medical marijuana.
We can’t let history repeat itself. We need to pressure Obama not to undermine marijuana legalization like his administration has with medical marijuana.
President Obama should do everything in his power to help them do it right. Or at least not stand in the way. It's up to us to make him do it.
Acting Director, Office of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance
We are pleased to announce the upcoming event: Bridging the Gap Between Public & Policy – Americans for Safe Access National Medical Cannabis Unity Conference, taking place February 22nd – 25th at the Mayflower Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012
Pro-Legalization Cops Cheer Marijuana Reform Election Results
Nine States and Localities Vote for More Sensible Drug Laws
In a historic night for drug law reformers, on Tuesday Colorado and Washington passed measures legalizing and regulating marijuana, Massachusetts became the 18th state to allow medical marijuana and six localities voted to modernize policies on marijuana. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials advocating for the legalization of drugs, has speakers on hand to comment.
Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, had this to say: “I cannot tell you how happy I am that after forty years of the racist, destructive exercise in futility that is the war on drugs, my home state of Washington has now put us on a different path. There are people who have lost today: drug cartels, street gangs, those who profit from keeping American incarceration rates the highest in the world. For the rest of us, however, this is a win. It’s a win for taxpayers. It’s a win for police. It’s a win for all those who care about social justice. This is indeed a wonderful day.”
Reformers are now focused on successfully implementing the new marijuana legalization laws in Colorado and Washington, and on determining which states are most likely to enact legalization in the near future.
“Because of the victories in all of these places, we awakened this morning in a slightly better country. It’s a little safer, a little bit more just,” said Neill Franklin, Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and 34-year veteran of the Baltimore and Maryland State police departments. “And when the rest of the country follows the lead pioneered by the voters of Colorado and Washington, we’ll be closer to living in a country with a drug policy that is truly about public safety.”
Following is a list of all marijuana reform measures on the ballot across the country and a list of LEAP speakers available to discuss these historic reforms:
Colorado: Marijuana legalization - Passed!
Washington: Marijuana legalization - Passed!
Oregon: Marijuana legalization – Failed.
Massachusetts: Medical marijuana - Passed!
Arkansas: Medical marijuana – Failed.
Detroit, MI: Decriminalization of adult marijuana possession - Passed!
Flint, MI: Decriminalization of adult marijuana possession - Passed!
Ypsilanti, MI: Marijuana to be lowest law enforcement priority - Passed!
Grand Rapids, MI: Decriminalization of adult marijuana possession - Passed!
Kalamazoo, MI: Three medical marijuana dispensaries permitted in city - Passed!
Burlington, VT: Recommendation that marijuana should be legalized - Passed!
Montana: Referendum restricting medical marijuana likely to pass.
Sampling of LEAP speakers available for comment:
* Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief
* Matt McCally, former corrections official
* Tony Ryan, retired 36-year veteran of the Denver police force
* Jason Thomas, former Colorado detention officer and marshal’s deputy
* Sean McAllister, former assistant attorney general for the state of Colorado
* Karen Hawkes, retired Massachusetts state trooper and medical marijuana patient
* Jack Cole, LEAP co-founder and former undercover narcotics agent
* Neill Franklin, LEAP executive director and 34-year Baltimore narcotics cop
* Stephen Downing, Former LAPD Deputy Chief of Police
# # #
November 1, 2012 national update:
Posted: 11/01/2012 9:14 am
Being a physicist, not a physician, I don't usually comment on issues in medical science. But I can no longer remain silent while people in my family and profession run the risk of federal arrest so that they can follow the recommendations of their doctors. Medical marijuana offers relief to people I care about, yet it remains illegal in the view of the United States government.
Aside from my personal stake in this issue, my professional experience has led me to ask the most obvious question a scientist could ask: Why hasn't the long-running controversy over medical marijuana been resolved using science?
Two months after taking office, President Obama endorsed the principle of basing government policy on sound science. Compared to his predecessor, this was a much-needed breath of fresh air. In a speech celebrating the restoration of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, our new president said the previous policy was misguided. "Rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," he .
Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.
This directive seemed to confirm America's commitment to innovation by protecting what President Obama called "free and open scientific inquiry." He said researchers should be able to work "free from manipulation or coercion," while policymakers "listen to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient." Advocates for stem cell research applauded loudly when the president said his intention was "ensuring that scientific data are never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda -- and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
The Obama administration has improved the role of science in the decision-making process in many areas of government, and Mr. Romney would probably undo this progress. However, as Barack Obama runs for re-election, his administration is ignoring scientists' voices on medical marijuana policy, and it is severely restricting their ability to conduct new research.
It's hard to escape the fact that there is a growing gap between the American public and the federal government on this topic. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana in one way or another. Public debate over the subject has mostly been confined to the question of how exactly marijuana should be delivered to the patients in states allowing its use. Increasing numbers of medical professionals are speaking out in support of the new laws as the biochemical understanding of marijuana's medicinal properties continues to grow.
Meanwhile, the federal government takes the official position of the Drug Enforcement Administration that marijuana belongs in the Schedule I category of controlled substances as a deadly narcotic on par with heroin, far too dangerous to be prescribed by doctors for medical use.
This enormous gap between what the public accepts as true and what the government insists is true has a long, unfortunate history. It reminds me of the great divide that developed between the then-ruling Catholic Church and the European public over the order of the cosmos in the 17th century. In 1633, the Church sentenced Galileo Galilei to lifetime house arrest for claiming that the earth revolves around the Sun rather than the other way around.
By 1686, Newton and Kepler had put heliocentrism on a firm mathematical footing, and literate Europeans were devouring the first generation of popular science books on the subject. Despite the widespread public acceptance of heliocentrism, the Church did not end its ban on the sale of such books in Rome until 1822.
In our modern world, we are blessed to have a large scientific community and the ability to employ advanced technology to prove and disprove hypotheses. It is surprising that the widening gap between public acceptance of medical marijuana and vehement resistance by federal authority has not already been resolved by science.
History, unfortunately, shows science has rarely been a factor in deciding federal marijuana policy. Representing the American Medical Association, Dr. William Woodward testified against the first federal marijuana law in 1937. He explained that marijuana was being used as a medicinal substance and doctors had found no evidence that it was harmful. The new law, he warned, would discourage research into medical applications of the drug.
Congress did not take Dr. Woodward's objections seriously -- just as the testimony of doctors and scientists on federal marijuana policy is ignored today. The Drug Enforcement Administration takes the position that marijuana belongs in the Schedule I category of controlled substances as a deadly narcotic on a par with heroin, too dangerous to be prescribed by doctors for medical use. It was a politically motivated classification when the Nixon Administration established it in the 1970's and that remains the case today, with the Obama Administration's evidence-free denial of a petition for rescheduling last year.
As a result, while scientists around the world are testing the ability of marijuana to treat a variety of physical and psychological ailments, in the United States our government puts up roadblocks.
Last year, Dr. Susan Sisley at the University of Arizona at Phoenix attempted to conduct clinical trials of marijuana treatments for American veterans suffering from extreme post-traumatic stress disorder. She won FDA approval for a placebo-controlled pilot study on 50 veterans.
Winning FDA approval would be sufficient for research on any other drug. With marijuana, however, scientists must also apply to the National Institute on Drug Abuse in order to purchase the only legal supply of marijuana.
NIDA turned down Dr. Sisley's request. As their director explained, NIDA's mission is to support research into the harms, not the benefits, of marijuana. Essentially, NIDA's mission is to block any research that could undermine the Schedule I status of marijuana as a dangerous narcotic, as insisted by the DEA.
One has to wonder: would NIDA administrators have rejected this study if they anticipated it would prove marijuana does work as a remedy for PTSD?
NIDA and the DEA get paid by the taxpayers to fight a PR and law enforcement war against marijuana. Marijuana accounts for 80% of drugs seized by the DEA. Thus, these agencies have a vested interest in restricting research into any possible medical uses for marijuana, research that could cause the public to become less frightened of marijuana and less eager to invest their tax dollars in marijuana prohibition.
This situation is analogous to giving coal and oil companies the power to approve or disapprove funding for climate research, or requiring paleontologists to apply to a federal agency made up of anti-evolution fundamentalists for permission to conduct digs.
The acceptance of science has come a long way since Galileo was arrested as a heretic for questioning the order of the Universe. Yet today, the federal government ignores scientific facts accepted around the globe -- not to mention the will of the American people -- to cling to outdated ideological policies and restrict marijuana research. This is hardly the "free and open scientific inquiry" President Obama touted in 2009.
As a scientist, I fear what this ultimately means for the pursuit of truth. As an American, I am concerned what it means about the relationship between this government and its citizens.
So I call on my fellow scientists to persuade the president to apply his doctrine of basing government policy on sound science to medical marijuana by signing this petition.
For the first time in nearly 20 years, a federal court will consider whether cannabis has medical uses. Patient advocates are appealing the federal government’s refusal to change the classification of cannabis to reflect new research on its role in treatment.
On October 16, ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford will appear before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to argue that the Drug Enforcement Administration wrongfully denied the petition from the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), of which ASA is a member.
"The current classification of cannabis is based more on politics than science," said Elford. "This is an historic opportunity for patients and doctors to confront politically motivated decision-making with the scientific evidence that cannabis is a safe, effective medicine that can meet the needs of millions of patients."
ASA will argue that the DEA deviated from its normal review procedures, applied the wrong evaluative standards, and ignored hundreds of scientific studies and expert medical opinion in denying the latest petition. Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration is the first case to bring recent scientific research on the medical uses of cannabis before the federal courts.
Cannabis was classified by Congress in 1970 as a Schedule I substance, defining it as a dangerous drug with a high potential for abuse and no current use in medical treatment. Federal hearings in 1988 on its classification concluded with the DEA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge ruling that the medical uses were proven, the safety record unparalleled, and that continuing to deny patients access would be “arbitrary and capricious.” His decision was set aside on procedural grounds. A 1995 petition to the DEA for review was also denied.
Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles published in the past 20 years have described the effectiveness of cannabis in treating serious medical conditions, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, arthritis, and others. Dozens of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association – have called on the federal government to make cannabis available for research and treatment.
Americans for Safe Access is asking medical professionals to sign on to a letter urging the federal government to reclassify cannabis as a drug with medical uses.
The open letter, released August 31 by the medical practitioners who serve on ASA’s board, states that “cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and an acceptable level of safety for medical use.” Anyone licensed to prescribe medications can add his or her name at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/
The letter supports ASA’s appeal of the DEA’s recent denial of a petition to reschedule cannabis, which will be heard October 16 before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The letter cites the consensus opinions of several leading national health organizations that challenge the current classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance. The American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians and the American Nurses Association are just a few of the respected professional organizations that have asked the federal government to change its policies to reflect current scientific understanding.
In introducing the sign-on letter, ASA board member Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, notes that the government’s position on medical cannabis “requires strained and ill-conceived arguments,” including a refusal to accept research findings published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
“With likely over 10,000 physicians authorizing patients to used cannabis in medical marijuana programs, which have been around for 16 years, and with the string of positive outcome clinical trials of cannabis and cannabis extracts, there is more than enough medical experience and evidence available to recognize that a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States exists for marijuana,” Dr. Aggarwal writes. “If strong scientific evidence and clinical professional opinions count for anything in policy, then it is time to re-schedule/de-schedule marijuana.”
Dr. Aggarwal’s introduction to the prescriber sign-on letter is at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/
The Vermont Medical Marijuana Association
The Vermont Medical Marijuana Association has been created! We exist to provide a platform for any legally registered medical marijuana patient in Vermont. The proposed purpose of this Association is as follows:
1) There is political power and economic power in numbers. It is in our own best interest to have representation collectively.
2) There is help to be had. Imagine meeting and getting to know other patients in your area. What a boon it would be to be able to pick the brains of other patients and growers and learn from one another.
3) Current statute makes it difficult if not impossible to maintain adequate access to a reliable supply of medicine. However by knowing others in your area you can learn how others avoid this ‘unpleasant’ situation. While we are committed to following both the letter and intent of the law, education cannot be suppressed, and benefits everyone.
4) As an Association we can work to make the law more equitable for the work and efforts of our hard-working registered caregivers, and also to help get this much needed medicine to our Veterans, and to work to remove the stigma physicians experience when asked to allow a patient to use cannabis as therapy.
5) There will be an annual fee. That amount is to be determined. The funds will initially be used to set up the Association, i.e. printing costs, advertising in local newspapers, memberships with other organizations, events, charity fund raisers, etc
6) How do I learn more? Just contact us through the contact tab above.
ACTION ALERT:Tell Obama Medical Cannabis is No Joke!
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel called out Pres. Obama at the White House Correspondents'
Dinner. Now's your chance to tell the President medical cannabis is no joke.
White House this week at 202-456-1414 and ask him:
What's with the medical marijuana crackdown? Jimmy Kimmel is right! Cannabis is
something real people like me care about, and medical cannabis patients vote, too. Tell
federal prosecutors to stop intimidating elected officials who are trying to regulate the
distribution of medicine. Tell them to stop prosecuting the people who are working
with those officials to provide it. Medical cannabis is not, as you told Rolling Stone,
"really doing folks damage." But your interference with state programs is!
post by john walker to Just Say Now.com
When Barack Obama ran for president he promised to respect the states’ medical marijuana laws. But since taking office Obama has been steadily using more and more parts of the federal government to wage a war on medical marijuana.
His Administration’s actions as of late have become so aggressively anti-medical marijuana that the Drug Policy Alliance has recently labeled Obama as worse than George W. Bush ever was towards medical marijuana.
Under the Obama Administration at least a half dozen federal agencies are being deployed to harass patients, hamper dispensaries, prevent research and in general cripple medical marijuana in this country.
These simply can’t all be isolated incidents at different federal agencies. This is a government wide assault on medical marijuana laws that were approved by the voters in a dozen states. The evidence is clear that the Obama Administration is engaged in a multi-front attack on medical marijuana. That assault has significantly picked up steam in the past few months.
Above article from Just Say Now.com
3/15/12 - check out the new link on the DSM-V reform initative
2/2/2012 See the new PTSD report on our links page
R. Gil Kerlikowske was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In his position, Mr. Kerlikowske coordinates all aspects of Federal drug control programs and implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy.
Mr. Kerlikowske brings 37 years of law enforcement and drug policy experience to the position. He most recently served 9 years as the Chief of Police for Seattle, Washington. When he left, crime was at its lowest point in 40 years. Previously, he was Deputy Director for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, where he was responsible for over 6 billion dollars in Federal assets. Mr. Kerlikowske was also Police Commissioner of Buffalo, New York. The majority of his law enforcement career was in Florida where he served in the St. Petersburg Police Department.
He was elected twice to be President of the Major Cities Chiefs, which is comprised of the largest city and county law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada, and was also elected President of the Police Executive Research Forum. He has received numerous awards and recognition for leadership, innovation, and community service. He served in the U.S. Army where he was awarded the Presidential Service Badge.
He served as the Chair of the Board of Directors of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a national organization that advocates for evidence-based programs that prevent youth from being involved in crime. He has also served on the advisory boards of the Salvation Army in Buffalo and Seattle.
Mr. Kerlikowske received the American Medical Association's, Dr. Nathan Davis Award for Outstanding Government Service in 2011.
Mr. Kerlikowske holds a B.A. and a M.A. in criminal justice as well as a Honorary Doctor in Humane Letters from the University of South Florida.
"The drug czar couldn’t have been more plain. On medical marijuana, which has strong public backing in opinion polls, the former Seattle police chief said that “science should determine what a medicine is, not popular vote.” As Kerlikowske pointed out, marijuana is harmful – and he has the studies to back it up." - Christian Science Monitor editorial, March 12, 2010
The Christian Science Monitor is:
None of the Above
by Al Byrne, co-founder, Patients Out of Time
In the past I have written the editors of this "paper" to protest their inappropriate to duplicious journalism concerning medical cannabis. That was and will be useless, I have come to understand. Ideologues and the ignorant contain too much hubris to entertain any other truth. I can tell you why they are not Christian in their behavior, why their plea to science is rubbish and that their desire to "monitor" cannabis use as a medicine is a ruse.
I do know about Christians and what it means to be one. Six years of nuns at Walnut Park School, six years of priests at St. Sebastian's School in Massachusetts and I graduated from the University of Notre Dame. Christians are about compassion, forgiveness and redemption. Jesus cured the lepers and he just may have used a cannabis balm to do so.
The drug czar is clear on medical marijuana (cannabis), it should be used based on science he said, and the editors add that we should be scared after reading a footnote. The only thing that scares me about the policeman and the editors is their complete lack of medical training yet they have no problem diagnosing millions of medical cannabis users as quacks. This of course follows that all the MD's and RN's who treat cannabis patients are "doing harm". Practicing medicine without a license in the US is a felony and the drug czar and these journalists have no medical credentials, none. In contrast the folks I work with have MD, RN and PhD degrees from the US and around the world. They say that the drug czar and the editors are without a scintilla of credibility on the subject. This is likely because they do not know a cannabinoid from a bong since none of that stuff is taught in police academies, journalism schools or any law school in the country; but they do like to pontificate as though they actually knew what they were talking about.
I really have no problem ordinarily with folks displaying their ignorance in public, it's just in this case the sick are dying and in misery while these guys play out their little fantasy.
I don't want to brag too much but while the editors have a footnote from a cop, I and others with medical training have put together some 80,000 pages of peer reviewed and published documents concerning the therapeutic use of cannabis. The first 50,000 pages cover all human history up to 2002 and can be found at www.drugscience.org.
The notion that cannabis is abused or results in dependency in 30 percent of its users is pure whimsy. Statements such as this are duplicity concocted and produced by no one with credentials. Want to be quoted as an expert? Write something foolish and the drug czar will repeat it and this paper will print it. These numbers are numbers. Included are all the kids who say that they would rather go to treatment "for dependency" than jail, or lose their hope of college aid. It even includes all those new cops and soldiers and sailors who have used cannabis but are now on duty busting sick people.
The cop says you get pulmonary illness from using cannabis. The editors agree. I do understand that journalists have been fired by the thousands to make room for pop entertainment and reports of violence but the federal government suffers no such loss. Hey, the special unit of the DEA that is in business just to harass and negate any positive medical cannabis advance could have told these guys about Dr. Tashkin. Donald Tashkin, MD, works for the University of California education system and over 2 decades studied multiple thousands of cannabis smokers. His conclusion, announced at our organization’s 5th National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics in the spring of 2008, was in direct opposition to the editors claims. (Do I see a retraction coming?) Dr. Tashkin found that of those thousands of subjects, cannabis smokers only, had no case of lung cancer, COPD or emphysema, none. In fact he surmised cannabis was a cancer inhibitor used in that fashion. We have this information on our web site, it's on Google video and You Tube video. You would think that the feds and a big paper could find stuff right there in front of them.
Maybe it was because they were concentrating on the next paragraph and beyond where the completely false stuff continues. It's reefer madness updated, a shooter used "pot", oh my. I recall the first drug czar, only by study, who entertained Congress with the first crazed cannabis attack scenario that included axe murders, blacks raping white girls and Mexicans coming to get you. A few years later number one was back testifying, you know like under oath, that the "marijuana" being used by our soldiers had robbed them of the will to fight. It makes me wonder what this team of cops and journalists will diagnose the sick with next.
No Christianity here. The science part is the biggest joke of their banner. I'll put the science of our next conference up against their unreferenced "report" on cannabis. Monitoring what? Certainly not the reality of the knowledge that surrounds them, or is it that they want their own reality?
I urge readers of this note to write to them and invite them to catch up with the last several decades of research. Drop the drug czar a note also, he needs the education too.
- Al Byrne
For Immediate Release: January 26th, 2012
Patient Advocates File Appeal Brief in Federal Case to Reclassify Medical Marijuana
Lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit challenges DEA denial to reschedule marijuana for medical use
Washington, DC -- The country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed an appeal brief today in the D.C. Circuit to compel the federal government to reclassify marijuana for medical use. In July 2011, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) denied a petition filed in 2002 by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), which was denied only after the coalition sued the government for unreasonable delay. The ASA brief filed today is an appeal of the CRC rescheduling denial.
"By ignoring the wealth of scientific evidence that clearly shows the therapeutic value of marijuana, the Obama Administration is playing politics at the expense of sick and dying Americans," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who filed the appeal today. "For the first time in more than 15 years we will be able to present evidence in court to challenge the government's flawed position on medical marijuana." Although two other rescheduling petitions have been filed since the establishment of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, the merits of medical efficacy was reviewed only once by the courts in 1994.
The ASA appeal brief asserts that the federal government acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its efforts to deny marijuana to millions of patients throughout the United States. ASA argues in the brief that the DEA has no "license to apply different criteria to marijuana than to other drugs, ignore critical scientific data, misrepresent social science research, or rely upon unsubstantiated assumptions, as the DEA has done in this case." ASA is urging the court to "require the DEA to analyze the scientific data evenhandedly," and order "a hearing and findings based on the scientific record."
Patient advocates argue that by failing to reclassify marijuana, the federal government has stifled meaningful research into a wide array of therapeutic uses, such as pain relief, appetite stimulation, nausea suppression, and spasticity control among many other benefits. In 1988, the government ignored the ruling of its own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young who said that, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
Since the CRC petition was filed in 2002, an even greater number of studies have been published that show the medical benefits of marijuana for illnesses such as neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's. Recent studies even show that marijuana may inhibit the growth of cancer cells. Last year, the National Cancer Institute, a division of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, added cannabis to its list of Complementary Alternative Medicines, pointing out that it's been therapeutically used for millennia. The ASA appeal asserts that scientific evidence that was studied or discovered after 2002 is still relevant and must be considered.
Attorneys David Holland and Michael Kennedy filed the original petition in 2002 on behalf the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, which included several individual patients and groups, such as ASA and Patients Out of Time.
1/10/12 - Dept of Public Safety survey and report released as mandated in S.17 of the 2011 Vermont General Assembly’s Act concerning marijuana for medical symptom use by persons with severe illness. Full report available here:
UPDATE October 11 – The RAND Corporation bowed to politcal pressure for the LA City Attorney’s Office and removed this study “until the review is complete.” Ironically, the RAND Corporation’s wen site says that “RAND is widely respected for operating independent of political and commercial pressures.” Apparently not in every case!
The RAND Corporation, an influential public policy think tank, issued a report today debunking the commonly-held misperception that medical cannabis dispensing centers (MCDCs) attract crime to the neighborhoods in which they are located. In what the authors call “the first systematic analysis of the link between medical marijuana dispensaries and crime,” the right-leaning RAND Corporation found no evidence that hundreds of MCDCs in Los Angeles caused an increase in crime. The report echoes research conducted by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the experience in communities nationwide. Policy makers should see this groundbreaking report as a green light to adopt sensible regulations to protect legal patients and communities – while preserving safe access to medicine.
The RAND Corporation report surveyed crime statistics around six hundred MCDCs in Los Angeles County, but failed to find any correlation between the facilities and an increase in crime. In fact, the report showed an increase in crime in some communities only after MCDCs closed. This would not be a surprise for Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who told Los Angeles City Council Members in 2010 that “banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries,” and the claim that MCDCs attract crime “doesn’t really bear out.”
The misperception that MCDCs attract crime has serious consequences for patients. In California, where medical cannabis has been legal for fifteen years, lawmakers recently voted to bar legal MCDCs from locating within six hundred feet of residential uses or zones – on top of an existing statute that bars the facilities from being the same distance from schools. The rationale? Public safety. Onerous regulations in Colorado, Arizona, New Jersey, and other states stem from the same bias. The RAND Corporation report is a welcome answer to this pervasive misconception.
Medical cannabis is legal in sixteen sates and the District of Columbia, but stigma and disinformation too often stymie regulations that could make the good intentions of voters and lawmakers a reality for patients. Policy makers should listen to what the RAND Corporation has to say today about crime and MCDCs, and to what ASA has been saying about the necessity of well-regulated community-based access to medical cannabis since 2002. We must put aside the groundless assertion that MCDCs attract crime, and move quickly to fully implement state medical cannabis laws.
Download a copy of the RAND Corporation report, “Regulating Medical Marijuana Dispensaries: An Overview with a Case Study of Los Angeles Preliminary Evidence of Their Impact on Crime.”
Download a copy of ASA’s report, “Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives and Local Regulation.”
Excerpt of recent article in Seven Days "......Vermont is the first state in the country to put its marijuana registry and dispensaries under the aegis of a law enforcement agency. The Division of Criminal Justice Services is writing the rules and regulations. But the public’s first peek at those rules and regs won’t happen before January 1, Aumand says — the next date DPS is supposed to report back to the legislature.
As part of the process, Aumand is sending out a statutorily mandated questionnaire to all patients on the medical marijuana registry, asking them a host of questions about their cannabis use. Among them: What medical conditions and/or symptoms do you use marijuana to control? Do you know what strains of marijuana you use, and, if so, which ones are most effective? How much marijuana do you consume each month? And how much would you be willing to pay per ounce?
The survey is expected to go out in September.
Aumand says he may add another question about whether the current law should be amended to allow patients who cultivate their own marijuana to access a dispensary if something goes wrong with their plants. Ultimately, he says, the goal is to help the state write better rules and help dispensaries better meet the needs of their patients.
“One of the challenges is to develop regulations that don’t make it easy for the diversion of marijuana, while at same time don’t overburden the dispensaries from a business perspective,” he explains. “That’s kind of a unique challenge for us right now.”
Indeed. Unlike marijuana dispensaries in other states, Vermont’s will be nonprofit entities, the establishment of which takes time and paperwork. And there are up-front costs. The initial application fee is $2500. If a license is granted, the owner pays $25,000 at the outset for the first year; $30,000 for each subsequent year.
Legal and financial requirements haven’t discouraged wannabe legal ganja growers. Shayne Lynn, a professional photographer based in Burlington, would like to be one of Vermont’s lucky four. Lynn, 40, is a native Vermonter who says he knows several patients on the Vermont registry who have already expressed an interest in accessing his services.
Thus far, Lynn has registered his nonprofit organization, Champlain Valley Dispensary, and drafted a preliminary business plan. The plan is incomplete, he admits, as he’s still waiting on the state to release its final rules. And, despite the mandatory nonprofit status and 1000-patient statewide limit, Lynn claims he’s already lined up some “investors” who are interested in backing a “100 percent Vermont-owned business.”
Lynn also claims he’s secured some “verbal OKs” from Burlington-area landlords to house the dispensary. Lynn doesn’t plan to do the growing himself, but knows “other people who have that expertise who are more than happy” to be a part of his business venture.
“There’s a lot of risk here, and it makes me very nervous,” Lynn says. He isn’t just talking about the time and money he’s invested, but the politics of the issue. “Under the Douglas administration, this never would have happened.”
Which begs the question: Exactly how will DPS evaluate these applications? Will it judge applicants’ horticultural abilities? What strains they’re offering? Whether they plan to offer full buds, tinctures or loose shake? Will there be a brownie taste test?
“No, we’re not going to get into any of that,” Aumand warns. Essentially, he says, the state will judge the soundness of applicants’ business plans, their proposed recordkeeping systems, their security plans, and, most critically, their criminal and financial backgrounds. He doesn’t expect any dispensary applications will be reviewed or approved before next summer. ....."Note: "... Due to a misinterpretation of state law by Vermont Department of Public Safety staff, this story originally contained incorrect information about when Vermont's dispensaries will be up and running. The effective date of the law, which will allow patients to legally buy medical marijuana rather than growing it themselves, is July 1, 2012, not 2014.
9/4/11 - The surveys have been sent out to all patients on the registry - contact DPS if you haven't received yours.
Please be sure to compete and return these surveys ASAP - the results will be very helpful in determining the direction of the dispensary program as it unfolds.
Time line of events:
Sec. 3. SURVEY
(a) By September 1, 2011, the department of public safety shall develop a
survey of patients registered to possess and use marijuana for symptom relief
and shall send the survey to such patients. The department shall request that
patients return the survey by October 1, 2011.
Congressmen Barney Frank and Ron Paul, along with courageous co-sponsors, have introduced the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011" (HR 2306) and we need your help to pass this historic piece of legislation that would end federal marijuana prohibition as we know it. Under this bill, states would have the explicit authority to fully tax and regulate marijuana, and the federal government would protect the state's right to do that. It would also allow states with medical marijuana laws to regulate without fear of federal government prosecutions. But states could also decide to continue prohibiting marijuana.
This is a common sense approach to regulating marijuana that allows states to decide how their citizens want marijuana laws to be implemented and enforced.
Please take a moment and send a message to your representative to let them know that this bill is important to you and a huge step toward a more sensible marijuana policy in America.
5/27/2011 Governor Shumlin is scheduled to sign S.17 into law Thursday June 2nd, 2011 at the statehouse.
5/5/2011 - Vermont has passed S.17 the medical cannabis dispensary bill. Now begins the rule-making phase by the Dept of Public Safety.
This is a huge step forward in making safe affordable medical cannabis available to state registry patients. However there is still much to be done. Please read the bill as passed for full details.
And please take the time to thank your Senators and state Representatives.
How did YOUR representative vote? See the Roll Call details of the vote below.
Listen to Senator Dick Sears and DPS Commissioner Flynn discuss the dispensary bill on VPR here
S.17 status - Vermont Dispensary Bill PASSED the Third and final reading by the Vermont Senate 4/15/2010. The bill has already been sent to the House of Representatives for consideration.
Please take time to thank as many Senators as you can and then contact your representatives in the House.
How did YOUR representative vote? Should you thank them or consider weather they deserve another term as YOUR representative....
S.17: An act relating to licensing a nonprofit organization to dispense marijuana for therapeutic purposes
Shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment?
Acinapura of Brandon Nay Ancel of Calais Yea Andrews of Rutland City Yea Aswad of Burlington Yea Atkins of Winooski Nay Bartholomew of Hartland Yea Batchelor of Derby Nay Bissonnette of Winooski Nay Bohi of Hartford Absent Botzow of Pownal Yea Bouchard of Colchester Nay Branagan of Georgia Yea Brennan of Colchester Nay Browning of Arlington Nay Burditt of West Rutland Yea Burke of Brattleboro Yea Buxton of Royalton Nay Campion of Bennington Yea Canfield of Fair Haven Nay Cheney of Norwich Yea Christie of Hartford Yea Clark of Vergennes Nay Clarkson of Woodstock Yea Condon of Colchester Yea Conquest of Newbury Yea Consejo of Sheldon Yea Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford Yea Corcoran of Bennington Nay Courcelle of Rutland City Yea Crawford of Burke Nay Dakin of Chester Yea Davis of Washington Yea Deen of Westminster Yea Degree of St. Albans City Yea* Devereux of Mount Holly Nay Dickinson of St. Albans Town Nay Donaghy of Poultney Nay Donahue of Northfield Yea Donovan of Burlington Yea* Eckhardt of Chittenden Yea Edwards of Brattleboro Yea Ellis of Waterbury Yea Emmons of Springfield Yea Evans of Essex Yea Fagan of Rutland City Nay* Fisher of Lincoln Yea Font-Russell of Rutland City Yea Frank of Underhill Yea French of Randolph Yea French of Shrewsbury Yea Gilbert of Fairfax Yea Grad of Moretown Yea Greshin of Warren Nay Haas of Rochester Yea Head of South Burlington Yea Heath of Westford Yea Hebert of Vernon Nay Helm of Fair Haven Nay Higley of Lowell Nay Hooper of Montpelier Yea Howard of Cambridge Yea Howrigan of Fairfield Absent Hubert of Milton Nay Jerman of Essex Yea Jewett of Ripton Yea Johnson of Canaan Nay Johnson of South Hero Yea Keenan of St. Albans City Yea Kilmartin of Newport City Nay* Kitzmiller of Montpelier Yea Klein of East Montpelier Yea Koch of Barre Town Nay* Komline of Dorset Nay Krebs of South Hero Nay Kupersmith of South Burlington Yea Lanpher of Vergennes Yea Larocque of Barnet Nay Larson of Burlington Yea Lawrence of Lyndon Nay Lenes of Shelburne Yea Leriche of Hardwick Yea Lewis of Berlin Nay Lewis of Derby Yea Lippert of Hinesburg Yea Lorber of Burlington Yea* Macaig of Williston Yea Malcolm of Pawlet Yea Manwaring of Wilmington Yea Marcotte of Coventry Yea Marek of Newfane Yea Martin of Springfield Yea Martin of Wolcott Yea Masland of Thetford Yea McAllister of Highgate Yea McCullough of Williston Yea McFaun of Barre Town Yea McNeil of Rutland Town Absent Miller of Shaftsbury Yea Mitchell of Barnard Yea Mook of Bennington Yea Moran of Wardsboro Yea Morrissey of Bennington Nay Mrowicki of Putney Yea Munger of South Burlington Nay Myers of Essex Nay Nuovo of Middlebury Yea O'Brien of Richmond Yea Olsen of Jamaica Yea Partridge of Windham Absent Pearce of Richford Nay Pearson of Burlington Yea Peaslee of Guildhall Nay Peltz of Woodbury Yea Perley of Enosburgh Nay Poirier of Barre City Yea Potter of Clarendon Yea Pugh of South Burlington Yea Ralston of Middlebury Yea Ram of Burlington Yea Reis of St. Johnsbury Nay Savage of Swanton Nay* Scheuermann of Stowe Yea Shand of Weathersfield Yea Sharpe of Bristol Yea Shaw of Pittsford Nay* Smith of Morristown Not Voting Smith of New Haven Nay* South of St. Johnsbury Nay Spengler of Colchester Yea Stevens of Shoreham Yea Stevens of Waterbury Yea Strong of Albany Nay Stuart of Brattleboro Absent Sweaney of Windsor Yea Taylor of Barre City Yea Till of Jericho Yea Toll of Danville Yea Townsend of Randolph Nay Trieber of Rockingham Yea Turner of Milton Nay Waite-Simpson of Essex Yea Webb of Shelburne Yea Weston of Burlington Yea Wilson of Manchester Yea Winters of Williamstown Absent Wizowaty of Burlington Yea Woodward of Johnson Yea Wright of Burlington Nay* Yantachka of Charlotte Yea* Young of Albany Yea
* Member explained vote on floor. See the House Journal for the date in question.
By Thatcher Moats
PRESS BUREAU - Published: April 30, 2011 VERMONT
MONTPELIER— House Speaker Shap Smith is giving the green light to legislation that would allow to have up to four medical marijuana dispensaries. Vermont
Smith said the dispensaries bill will go to the House floor next week where he expects it to pass.
The bill has already been approved by a wide margin in the Senate and has strong support from Gov. Peter Shumlin, so House approval is the final hurdle.
The dispensaries legislation would mark the latest evolution in
’s medical marijuana laws. Vermont
The state established a medical marijuana registry in 2004, which now has more than 300 patients. But current law does not give Vermonters who use marijuana for chronic pain a place to buy the drug. They are allowed to grow a limited amount, but proponents of the dispensaries bill say that can be difficult for someone in pain with little experience.
“A 70-year-old woman with cancer has no clue where to find marijuana seeds and probably has no clue how to grow them,” said Rep. Ann Pugh, chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee, which approved the bill this week.
Current law does allow a registered caretaker to grow marijuana for someone on the registry, but proponents say that can present its own problems: It can be a hassle to grow and some people don’t want marijuana growing in their house. And medical marijuana users shouldn’t have to buy the drug on the street, lawmakers argue.
House Waysand Means Committee approved the bill Friday, and plans to offer an amendment that will be voted on when the legislation hits the floor.
The committee is recommending lowering the annual fee that someone who wants to establish a dispensary must pay.
The Senate included a $32,000-a-year license fee to have a dispensary, which was designed to cover the cost for the state to regulate the dispensaries. The Department of Public Safety, which includes the Vermont State Police, would oversee the dispensaries.
Members of the
House Waysand Means Committee said $32,000 could be a prohibitively high cost.
“If indeed the policy is to create a process to allow the distribution of marijuana legally, we should create a process that has a high potential for success among those who create the dispensaries,” said Rep. Adam Greshin, an independent from
The committee will offer an amendment that would lower the fee to $20,000 in the first year, and raise it to $30,000 after that. But the amendment also calls on lawmakers to study alternate ways to extract money from the dispensaries — including a sales tax on the marijuana — that could eliminate the need for the large license fees. The Department of Public Safety supports the amendment.
The bill will go on the floor Wednesday and Thursday, Smith said.
House Republicans do not plan to rally in opposition to the legislation. House minority leader Rep. Don Turner said there are members of his caucus on both sides of the issue, and said he’s not sure how he’ll vote on the bill.
Rep. Bill Johnson, a Republican from
Canaan, voted against the bill in the House Waysand Means Committee. “Just globally, I don’t think the state should be involved in sanctioning an illegal drug, which is illegal federally,” Johnson said.
Keith Flynn, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety and a Shumlin appointee, said he thinks there are enough safeguards in the bill to ease concerns about public safety.
The safeguards include:
A dispensary can’t be within 1,000 feet of a school or child-care facility.
Cultivation of a limited amount of marijuana must be done in a closed, locked facility.
The Department of Public Safety can perform on-site visits at any time and inspect confidential records.
“These people are not going to be out there adding to the profit of the underlying criminal enterprise,” Flynn said.
If the bill does indeed pass,
Vermontwould join several other states — including California, Montanaand — that have dispensaries. But lawmakers argue the Wild West atmosphere around dispensaries in other states won’t exist here because of the careful way the legislation is crafted. Colorado
“This will be nothing like that,” said Rep. Bill Lippert, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.
will be the only state where the dispensaries are regulated by the Department of Public Safety and not the Department of Health, said Rep. Sandy Haas, who will present the bill on the floor next week. Vermont
As Smith explained his support for the bill, he echoed a view many other lawmakers share: If the state is going to allow people to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, it should create an avenue for people to legally get it. Smith said his wife, who is a doctor, relayed stories of patients who had difficulty accessing medical marijuana.
“I listened to that from her, and I think this is probably a good thing to do,” Smith said.
Thank you and congratulations to everyone who voiced their opinion - democracy does not work unless YOU speak up.
Please contact your local senator and ask that he or she support this all important bill.
AN ACT RELATING TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
Courtesy of VoteSmart
Notice! - Watch a special LIVE call in show at 7:00 PM EST on VCAM channel 15 Wednesday Dec 8th with special guests to discuss state of MMJ access in
Please join us for this important discussion.
Dear President Obama-
I am extremely disappointed with your decision to nominate Michele Leonhart as the Drug Enforcement Administration’s permanent administrator. In her current position as acting administrator, Ms. Leonhart has demonstrated blatant disregard for your own administration’s policies on medical marijuana by continuing the practice of harassing medical marijuana patients, raiding medical marijuana facilities and blocking valuable research projects that involve the cultivation of marijuana, including an FDA-approved study conducted by the University of Massachusetts.
Ms. Leonhart has had ample opportunity to comply with your direction to federal officials to cease medical marijuana raids and prosecutions in the interest of conserving federal resources. Instead, she has chosen to exacerbate an already disturbing situation by allowing raids to continue: within the past month, DEA agents have raided five medical marijuana facilities in states that have already legalized medical marijuana.
Under Michele Leonhart’s leadership, the DEA is unlikely to take a more practical, more humane approach to drug policy reform. Your administration has demonstrated an interest in changing our current, archaic federal policies regarding medical marijuana. The nomination of Michele Leonhart as the DEA’s administrator is a step backward. I urge you to withdraw her nomination and select a new nominee who will abide by your administration’s commitment to reformed medical marijuana policy.
voice your displeasure w/ the presidents' nomination HERE
Happy 4/20 to everyone reading this -
we hope your 4/20 plans are enjoyable, safe, happy and peaceful.
Don't forget the thousands of marijuana prisoners incarcerated by our government!
Send a letter, make a phone call, or make a donation to the cause.
Check out this Mac/PC parody by LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)
and click here for ASA interview
Interview with Caren Woodson
Director of government affairs at Americans for Safe Access
May 7 2010
AUGUSTA -- The Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Licensing and Regulatory Services announced Wednesday it is accepting applications from nonprofit corporations to become dispensaries under Maine's Medical Use of Marijuana Act.
A dispensary system was established to assist registered patients whose physicians believe they will benefit from the medical use of marijuana for certain medical conditions.
Rules and application materials are available at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/dlrs
"The rules that have been established reflect the desires of prospective patients, the medical community, public safety, the Governor's Medical Marijuana Task Force and the people of Maine who voted in favor of a medical marijuana program," said DHHS Commissioner Brenda Harvey.
DHHS will select eight dispensaries, one in each of the state's eight public health districts.
Applicants must address a variety of topics, including the plan to operate as a nonprofit corporation long-term, convenience of location, prior business experience, patient education, record-keeping, inventory, quality control, security and staffing.
Each application must be accompanied by a $15,000 dispensary fee. Those who are not chosen will have all but $1,000 returned.
Applications will be accepted until 2 p.m. June 25. Award announcements will be July 9.
This website was created to provide a central location for patients and others to stay up to date on
NOTE - currently there are NO LEGAL operating medical marijuana dispensaries in the state of
Please contact your elected
If you are interested in working to create a compassion center in your area, feel free to drop us a line at info(@) vermontcompassioncenters.net