Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Please vote yes on Question Three; Medical Marijuana is a needed treatment for patients like my husband

By

Photo taken on July 8, 2012 by Michael Horan.  Note that Marc Aaron Butler is third from the right.

Please vote Yes on Question 3.  For me this is a deeply personal ask and cause.  As most of you know, my husband Marc who is the love of my life died on September 5, 2012 from pancreatic cancer after suffering horrible pain, and uncontrollable nausea that led to him losing 90 pounds.  None of the available medications could control his nausea, wasting and pain. That is why he not only lost 90 pounds but became unable to tolerate or qualify for chemotherapy.

Yes, he was prescribed the Big Pharma synthetic THC – the brand name is “Marinol” in an attempt to control his vomiting and nausea.  He was prescribed the generic,  “Dronabinol”.  First, this synthetic is something that comes in only one dose, cannot be customized, and hits like a sledge hammer.  It was barely tolerable, and when Mac’s doctor wanted him to have three doses a day, and we were told only two doses were approved it would have cost $3200.00 to self pay for the third dose.  That is about $300.00 a pill.  You can see why Big Pharma wants to fight the use of a natural herb; there is big money in synthetic marijuana for the pharmacy industry.  Without the synthetic, Marc had no appetite, and could not eat at all.  Ultimately, the synthetic, Dronabinol, no longer worked because he could no longer swallow – and before that, he could no longer tolerate the hammer like impact of this strong synthetic on his system.

 

I will never know whether the ability to make custom doses and individually customize using natural marijuana could have given him more good days, or even allowed him to eat enough to tolerate chemo therapy and maybe beat pancreatic cancer.  The initial, newly available tough program of chemotherapy actually reduced his cancer but he could not tolerate it because he could not rebuild the healthy tissues destroyed by the chemotherapy at the same time it was controlling and destroying his cancer.  Marc needed to eat 128 grams of protein a day to rebuild the healthy, essential tissues destroyed by chemo and there were no medications available to him that allowed him to do so, given the way his medical care was provided and the fact that he could not get or use nebulized marijuana only a synthetic capsule he could not swallow.

 

Scott Lehigh’s column in the Boston Globe today supporting Yes on Question 3 uses facts to show why it is so important to families like mine and patients like Marc that Question 3 be passed.  Scott Lehigh totally debunks the melodrama of “reefer madness” pitched by Big Pharma and the opponents to Question 3 http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/11/01/medical-marijuana-isn-threat/45D4tuQtrW18ccIcqgGANM/story.html

I believe that medical marijuana could have improved Marc’s quality of life and given him more days to be with us. Like me, I believe any wife or family member who has seen someone like Marc suffer as Marc did would want every treatment option available to alleviate their pain, nausea and wasting. Please see my story describing Marc’s battle with pancreatic cancer, as well as the stories of other patients around the state at http://www.compassionforpatients.com/videos/who need medical marijuana to help them now.

You can honor Marc and others fighting dread diseases by voting on November 6 in favor of Question 3.  Please help patients who need medical marijuana to be able to have and use it. Please have compassion for them as well as my family and so many others in Massachusetts by voting Yes on Question 3.

I will end with the poem I read when Marc and I were married on July 19, 1980, and again at his funerals in Massachusetts and Maine on September 10, 2012 and September 13, 2012 respectively:

PROTHALAMION

Deepening trust, knowing

You would never hurt me or use me;

That even as I cherish and nurture you

You are watering and tending me.

Deepening respect, seeing

How hard you work to make your part of the world

A better place, how every talent you possess

Is important to you, how even when you fail

You have accomplished as much as you could

and never stopped growing

And my growing is as important to you

As your own.

Deepening affection.

You are so kind in what you do and say.

Animals and children flock about you.

You pet them and purr inside; I

can hear it.

I know we will raise our children

to be fearless

for they need never fear

You or I.

Deepening desire.  You let me know

When I have pleased you, and are so gentle

and still let me know how much you want to touch

and be with me.

How freely you share

your feelings; in your vulnerability

you help me to find

mine.

Deepening partnership; as we live together

in the world, you never leave me alone to cope

with pain or difficulty, even as I always try

to help you.  We shall build

A home, a life, a shared universe.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler

written in May of 1980 on the occasion of her marriage to Marc Aaron Butler

 

 

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. I grew up in California and still go back regularly. Medical marijuana has been an absolute disaster there, which informs my position. If proponents of the prop 3 can convince me that our law is crafted in such a way that we won’t have the same troubles here (corruption of the medical profession, regulatory nightmare for cities and towns, huge, for-profit “dispensaries”), then I will vote ‘yes’. Until then, while I support getting pot for people like your husband, I think either the decriminalization scheme we have in place currently, or legalization, with regulation, would be better options.

    • endorsed the question, but he says that he will introduce legislation to avoid the problems of California.

      Rosenberg said the question gives a free rein to a person’s physician to determine what debilitating conditions could qualify for medical pot.

      “I don’t want any back door recreational marijuana,” he said. “I want to make sure the law is written tightly enough that can’t happen. The policy goal is medical marijuana only.”

      Rosenberg said he wants to give control to the state Department of Public Health to determine which medical conditions would qualify a person for medical marijuana after diagnosis by a doctor.

      “The ballot question implies that doctors can certify for conditions beyond what the DPH says,” Rosenberg said. “I want to assure that the DPH has the ultimate authority.”

      Under the ballot question, people would also need a registration card from the state Department of Public Health after getting a written recommendation from a doctor.
      The registration card could give a check to the state public health department, but that is unclear, Rosenberg said.

      Rosenberg said he is also opposed to a section of the question that would allow certain people or their caregivers to obtain “hardship” waivers from the state to personally grow a 60-day supply of marijuana. Handicapped people, people with financial problems, or even those who live too far from proposed dispensaries could receive hardship permits to grow at home in a locked facility.

      Don’t know if that helps at all.

    • let’s do it differently.

      We do a lot of things better than California. I think we can add medical marijuana to the list.

    • be deconstructed to a logical premise. It never can. Fear is illogical. Hatred of Mexicans is illogical.

      P.S. Did you know that the spelling of Marijuana was changed to the current spelling in order to sound similar to “Tiajuana”. Wooooo Scary!?!?

  4. While I understand the concerns of those who have seen CA implement it, I have confidence we can learn from their mistakes. After all, we still have Gov Deval Patrick at the helm for its first two years if it passes. He does a good technocratic job when it comes to putting new laws into action (like Romneycare which largely fell to him to put in place).

  7. And the days are still long, and sometimes the nights, longer; plenty of time for prayer and study to be sure, now. But I can do my bit to make a better chance for the next patient. I can urge that we all use our free agency, collectively, to nurture one another and the planet, rather than to serve greed and power. And yes, I can raise funds for cancer research in Marc’s name both at a website and – stay tuned – for a concert to honor him the first Sunday in July at the Regent theater in Arlington; the venue is being donated and is already reserved. Hope to see MANY of you there. Marc’s fund raising memorial website is: https://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/MarcAaronButler/KeeptheMemoryAlive

  8. While we have decriminalized pot, the act of buying pot is against the law. The act of obtaining marijuana is a crime, while possession is a civil infraction. Crazy but true. (And never mind that you are still breaking federal law).

    I suspect folks like Amber would have no idea where they can obtain pot in the criminal black market. The thought of making Amber a criminal if she sought relief form the pain her husband was suffering is just immoral. Please vote yes!

  9. I’ve already voted absentee and went straight no on the questions. I have to feel really strongly to vote yes because I believe I am not equipped in most cases to buck the considerations of the merits of our fulltime legislature.

    • This is a case where I feel strongly that the ballot question is appropriate. The issue will not be taken up properly on its own, between the lobbying power of drug companies and legislator fears of appearing soft on a law enforcement issue. Who in a marginal district wants to look like they’re ‘soft on drugs’? Which isn’t what this is about, but is how political attacks will be framed.

      Passage of this question will give lawmakers the political cover necessary to implement it properly. And morally, I do not feel I have the right to deny people a medical treatment that could ease their suffering. That outweighs my general dislike of government by ballot initiative.

  10. of an herb that can be grown in your garden that will eliminate the need to buy their $1000 prescription pain pills. The time has come. I hope MA makes the sane choice — despite all the hand wringing.

  12. I’m voting yes. I didn’t understand this issue properly before this post. Thanks for the education.

  13. Thank you for the impassioned diary, Deb. Most people can’t fathom the idea that this is an important topic for all too many families out there. It’s ignorant and wrong.

  14. I am for medical use, and strongly opposed to legalizing recreational use.
    I will vote Yes.

    Question 3
    Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012? This proposed law would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marijuana by qualifying patients. To qualify, a patient must have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition, such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV-positive status or AIDS, hepatitis C, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, or multiple sclerosis. The patient would also have to obtain a written certification, from a physician with whom the patient has a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient has a specific debilitating medical condition and would likely obtain a net benefit from medical use of marijuana. The proposed law would allow patients to possess up to a 60-day supply of marijuana for their personal medical use. The state Department of Public Health (DPH) would decide what amount would be a 60-day supply. A patient could designate a personal caregiver, at least 21 years old, who could assist with the patient’s medical use of marijuana but would be prohibited from consuming that marijuana. Patients and caregivers would have to register with DPH by submitting the physician’s certification. The proposed law would allow for non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers. A treatment center would have to apply for a DPH registration by (1) paying a fee to offset DPH’s administrative costs; (2) identifying its location and one additional location, if any, where marijuana would be grown; and (3) submitting operating procedures, consistent with rules to be issued by DPH, including cultivation and storage of marijuana only in enclosed, locked facilities. A treatment center’s personnel would have to register with DPH before working or volunteering at the center, be at least 21 years old, and have no felony drug convictions. In 2013, there could be no more than 35 treatment centers, with at least one but not more than five centers in each county. In later years, DPH could modify the number of centers. The proposed law would require DPH to issue a cultivation registration to a qualifying patient whose access to a treatment center is limited by financial hardship, physical inability to access reasonable transportation, or distance. This would allow the patient or caregiver to grow only enough plants, in a closed, locked facility, for a 60-day supply of marijuana for the patient’s own use. DPH could revoke any registration for a willful violation of the proposed law. Fraudulent use of a DPH registration could be punished by up to six months in a house of correction or a fine of up to $500, and fraudulent use of a registration for the sale, distribution, or trafficking of marijuana for non-medical use for profit could be punished by up to five years in state prison or by two and one-half years in a house of correction. The proposed law would (1) not give immunity under federal law or obstruct federal enforcement of federal law; (2) not supersede Massachusetts laws prohibiting possession, cultivation, or sale of marijuana for nonmedical purposes; (3) not allow the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft while under the influence of marijuana; (4) not require any health insurer or government entity to reimburse for the costs of the medical use of marijuana; (5) not require any health care professional to authorize the medical use of marijuana; (6) not require any accommodation of the medical use of marijuana in any workplace, school bus or grounds, youth center, or correctional facility; and (7) not require any accommodation of smoking marijuana in any public place. The proposed law would take effect January 1, 2013, and states that if any of its part were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

    A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medial use of marijuana allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.

    A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.
    THIS QUESTION IS NOT BINDING
    Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?

    • I really screwed up the title and the bit I over-quoted from the question below the Medical use question.
      The Medical use question IS BINDING, and will enact the proposed law.
      Sorry about that.

  15. Medical marijuana is favored by people who know cancer patients. It’s opposed by “clean and mean” types who only care about punishing loose-living partiers. The medical marijuana scheme proposed isn’t perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. Allowing sick cancer patients something that will allow them to eat and get strength is a greater priority than punishing partiers.

    I also favor ending the drug war entirely. How many liquor store owners have shot each other recently? Exactly.

    • This is a reality based community that must support a reality based drug policy. Allowing those that are very sick, along with the fantastic medical research community we have in this state, full access to pain reducing and medically beneficial drugs is a no brainer to me. Also like Colorado showed, this will unleash the talents of the creative class, which we have in abundance, and be a huge cash cow for our state. Full legalization would have the same effect and help free our prisons and tax dollars while generating even more revenue. Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it like alcohol and tobacco. Endorse an increasing bipartisan majority (from Pat Robertson to Snoop Dog) in favoring rational, reason based drug policy.

Archives