Supreme Court rules feds may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctor's orders

[BigBadBrian]

News story and link to follow shortly.

Let them suffer the pain I say. If only they were in the same condition.

[Nickdfresh]

Frankly, I think anyone should be able to possess and use a small amount of pot, and the Fed's should supply those suffering with free weed from one of the ir numerous fields.

[FORD]

Re: Supreme Court rules feds may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctor's orde

Originally posted by BigBadBrian


News story and link to follow shortly.

Let them suffer the pain I say. If only they were in the same condition.

Well, one of them actually IS, if I remember correctly.

Wonder if Billy Rehnquist has access to the medicinal ganja?

The ties between the BCE and pharmaceutical companies are well known (i.e. Rummy being the former CEO of Searle/Monsanto). They would ban the use of ANY natural medicine if they could get away with it, because they can't patent a plant. Conveniently for them, marijuana is already illegal - primarily because of previous corporatist pressure from the breweries and the timber industry in the 1930's.

I will always go for a natural medicine over a synthetic chemical whenever possible. The side effects of some prescription pharmaceuticals are as bad or worse than the symptoms they claim to treat.

Marijuana in particular has been proven effective in treating nausea and stimulating appetite in chemotherapy patients, and those on AIDS related drugs. It treats glaucoma by relieving pressure on capillaries in the eyeball. Its potential as a blood sugar regulator for diabetes hasn't even been clinically tested (the common side effect of being stoned - "the munchies" - is, in fact, due to a drop in blood sugar)

It's another sick example of what happens when corporatism and domionist fascism meet

[Hardrock69]

GODDAM THOSE MOTHERFUCKING CONSERVATIVE BASTARDS!!!

I HOPE THEY ROAST IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!

[BigBadBrian]

Re: Re: Supreme Court rules feds may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctor's orde

Originally posted by FORD


I will always go for a natural medicine over a synthetic chemical whenever possible. The side effects of some prescription pharmaceuticals are as bad or worse than the symptoms they claim to treat.

True enough, and I am a living testimony to that however....


Herbs and botanicals also must be regarded with extreme caution. Just because they are "from the Earth" or labeled as "natural" don't mean they are not dangerous or can't hurt people.

A good reference is:



Family Herbal

[Nickdfresh]

Re: Re: Re: Supreme Court rules feds may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on docto

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
True enough, and I am a living testimony to that however....


Herbs and botanicals also must be regarded with extreme caution. Just because they are "from the Earth" or labeled as "natural" don't mean they are not dangerous or can't hurt people.

A good reference is:



Family Herbal

That's quite true also! There is a lot of bad info. out there regarding natural remedies.

[knuckleboner]

eh...it's not the supreme court's fault.

they're ruling that the federal law (passed by congress) trumps a doctor's prescription.

they're probably right.

whether the federal, no medicinal marijuana law is good or bad, it's valid law.

in which case, until it's changed, the supreme court should uphold it.

(after all, we don't want activist judges...)

[Nickdfresh]

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 12:05 PM EDT (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."

Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain from multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics.

"It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001, Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue this election year.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

[FORD]

"The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said pResident Bush in December 2001.

And since then, the poppy crop in Afghanistan is back to pre-Taliban levels. Funny how that works, eh Junior?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
GODDAM THOSE MOTHERFUCKING CONSERVATIVE BASTARDS!!!

I HOPE THEY ROAST IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.


Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

So much for that theory.

[DLR'sCock]

This is complete fucking bullshit!



Step by step, and inch by inch....

[Warham]

Most people in this country don't want legalized drugs.

Blame the decision on the mass population if you have a problem with it.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Most people in this country don't want legalized drugs.

Blame the decision on the mass population if you have a problem with it.

No, I blame it on pharmaceutical corporations who want to control access to what they can't own, natural medicine. The fact that these corporations have close ties to the BCE means they can get away with whatever they want.

I don't suppose you watched 60 minutes last night?

[Warham]

Pot being illegal hasn't stopped anyone from smoking it.

Those ladies will just buy their pot from the guy selling it down the street, rather than get a prescription from the good doctor.

The companies can't control it.

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Pot being illegal hasn't stopped anyone from smoking it.

Sure it has. Especially if they get locked up for it.

Now that's glib, but we'reaalso talking ease of access. A septuagenarian with cancer isn't going to have an inkling of a clue that the teenager down the block has dimebags of skunk for 20 bucks for sale.