News story and link to follow shortly.
Let them suffer the pain I say. If only they were in the same condition.
Supreme Court rules feds may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctor's orders
News story and link to follow shortly.
Let them suffer the pain I say. If only they were in the same condition.
“If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush
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.
Well, one of them actually IS, if I remember correctly.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.
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
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992
GODDAM THOSE MOTHERFUCKING CONSERVATIVE BASTARDS!!!
I HOPE THEY ROAST IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!
True enough, and I am a living testimony to that however....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.
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.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
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...)
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.
"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?
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.
This is complete fucking bullshit!
Step by step, and inch by inch....
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.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.
I don't suppose you watched 60 minutes last night?
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.
Sure it has. Especially if they get locked up for it.Originally posted by Warham
Pot being illegal hasn't stopped anyone from smoking 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.
But she went and asked her doctor about it obviously, or did the good doctor suggest it to her?
You'd be suprised what 60 year olds know.
Hey, maybe you'll be lucky enough to get an illness and end up in jail for treating it one day. Kudos!
Some of you people here make me so sick and digust me. Everyday I see how devolved so many are, but I guess I should just accept it. Such is humanity and so many prove how much they need to learn. Then again, it is not mine to judge. The weakness of man, is one's own self interest and self devotion to thine own self. The world is so much more than you. The blind have and will be, but in time we all learn, no matter how slowly and how many times it takes, we end up back on the wheel, spinning and spinning.
Don't give me that line of hogwash.
Do you know the percentage of people who smoke pot that actually go to jail? I'd guess under .5%, and I'm probably being generous.
You make me sick, because you don't know anybody's family history around here to go around making inflamatory remarks. My grandmother had cancer that was just as bad as what that lady has, and I know firsthand seeing someone wilt away after years of having it start in the liver, then work it's way into the lungs, and then FINALLY into the brain. She died at the young age of 65.
That said, I'm finished with this discussion. After hearing you wishing it on somebody else, I don't need to discuss this with you any longer. I'd never wish cancer on my worst enemy.
Howard Dean is definately the right leader for your party.
Those would be the people who can't afford adequate legal representation, or just get unlucky enugh to hire a lawyer who doesn't put the time and energy into supporting his/her client.Originally posted by Warham
Don't give me that line of hogwash.
Do you know the percentage of people who smoke pot that actually go to jail? I'd guess under .5%, and I'm probably being generous.
Like I've said in a few different threads now, all this new "drug war" fascism crap is just the set up for the BCE to use manipulation of the legal system to force "volunteer" enlistment into the military as an alternative to prison.
It's so fucking obvious Ray Charles could see it. And he's both blind AND dead.
Originally posted by FORD
Like I've said in a few different threads now, all this new "drug war" fascism crap is just the set up for the BCE to use manipulation of the legal system to force "volunteer" enlistment into the military as an alternative to prison.
It's so fucking obvious Ray Charles could see it. And he's both blind AND dead.
oh yeah Ford, the writing is on the wall....
Oh and to the puking one, my comments address so much more than this singular topic....so save the bullshit...I have seen hundreds of people die from cancer, so fucking save it....hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and have lost family members of my own from cancer, so save the fucking bullshit, because I'm addressing you and the other monkeys directly, not your family, so keep your family and your dead grandmother out of it........the fact of the matter here is that so many people here have their heads so far up their own ass that maybe if they were on the receiving end of what they support so rightly that maybe a lesson or two could be learned....unfortunately that is usually the case...
This issue of making a medical treatment for many illnesses illegal is all about fucking money, control, and power(in this case, the pharmaceutical industry), which is humanities biggest flaw and weakness....but isn't that usually why so many die needlessly....
Believe me, if they could outlaw natural medicines and treatments, they would....
the problem with Kings is that they don't like giving up their crowns....
I dont see how it could be a good thing
The fact that a conservative fascist like Rehnquist dissented from this decision actually speaks volumes. Now that he KNOWS what it's like to deal with a terminal illness, he might be able to appreciate the reality of what people have to deal with in the real world.
I think clinton once said.............
Let me know when you've come off the high horse and decided to walk amongst the common man again.Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Hey, maybe you'll be lucky enough to get an illness and end up in jail for treating it one day. Kudos!
Some of you people here make me so sick and digust me. Everyday I see how devolved so many are, but I guess I should just accept it. Such is humanity and so many prove how much they need to learn. Then again, it is not mine to judge. The weakness of man, is one's own self interest and self devotion to thine own self. The world is so much more than you. The blind have and will be, but in time we all learn, no matter how slowly and how many times it takes, we end up back on the wheel, spinning and spinning.
I think it is a bit odd to see Americans and Canadians argue about American politics...........
Dont you??? who do YOU think would/should win??
GO WARHAM!!!
WARHAM!!
WARHAM!!
WARHAM!!
WARHAM!!
WARHAM!!
WARHAM!!
WARHAM!!
Like I said, take the fucking cheerleading to PM.
Hey FORD read the before WARHAM part..........will ya.......
Prosecutions Unlikely of Medical Pot Users
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 10:23 AM
WASHINGTON -- Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public.
"The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana."
Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
Link
If the Federal Government wants to do it right, they need to either a) legalize marijuana or b) make alcohol & tobacco illegal.
There can be no middle ground without appearing to be a pack of idiots.
There has not been a single case of a human dying from marijuana use in the recorded history of man.
Yet in 2004, an estimated 16654 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes.;
That is not counting those who died because they were drunk and did something stupid like play chicken with a freight train, or were the shooting victim of someone ELSE who was drunk.
Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 440,000 deaths, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, each year. This estimate includes 35,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure.
So you can reasonably assume 500,000 people die each year from alcohol or tobacco, and NOBODY dies from the use of Marijuana, yet Mary Jane is illegal and tobacco and alchol are not.
BY KEEPING THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE, OUR CONGRESS IS GUILTY OF MURDER!!!
We already know the Bush administration condones murder on a large scale (9/11, Iraq War, Vietnam, etc.) but nobody bothers to think about health related issues.
BY NOT MAKING ALCOHOL & TOBACCO ILLEGAL, THE GOVERNMENT IS ALSO GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER. THEY (meaning Congress) are not outlawing those things which are harmful to humans (why the fuck are seat-belt laws becoming mandatory? They save lives, right?).
Since more than ONE member of Congress are guilty of negligence in this aspect, that makes it a conspiracy. And it only follows that if they are unwilling to make these illegal, they ARE willing for people to die.
CONGRESS WANTS 500,000 PEOPLE PER YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES TO DIE, AND ARE ACTIVELY PREVENTING ANY LAWS THAT WOULD SAVE THOSE LIVES!!!!
IF THAT IS NOT CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER, WHAT IS?
Tobacco companies are one of the largest funders of the Republican party. Especially those fucking Neanderthals from the Southern States.
Finally, a sensible voice.Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Prosecutions Unlikely of Medical Pot Users
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 10:23 AM
WASHINGTON -- Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public.
"The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana."
Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
Link
Oh.........I wont get into this one....................everytime I put something on here even remotely political.......and
post something even remotely intellectual in favor of those opposing,
instead of having an adult response all i get is personal attacks....
RedBallJets is my witness..........SO I"LL MOVE TO ANOTHER FUCKING THREAD......
and have friendly exchanges of ideas..........th eway we are supposed to
yes...most poepel yuisually tipe thier......"remoetly intilleckshual" posts..........just like this one.....and then tipe luv notez back n fourth to their littel girlfrind blue ball jets....right in the thred instaed of using the PMS sistem.
POT is a suppressed raw material for 25K products, THAT'S WHY IT'S ILLEGAL
Jack Herer's sketchy Emperor Wears No Clothes bestseller claims hemp can make 25,000 products.
The most significant are fine biodiesel for modern engines and for all CO2-neutral energy applications, many. We SHOULD have had hemp alcohol and castor oil manufactured from California farms, for the last 110 years, no thanks to pigs, the Pope, any of their anal pals. For the last 20, we should have had good genetically engineered biodiesel.
NOT. The reason for this latest Supremes decision is nobody in the US can get past coruption. If I were a LAWYER, I wouldn't be here writing to you guys, thinking maybe some corporate rockers are smart enough to admit their progression of fraud cannot work forever. YOU don't get anymore CVH, and now, the US can take your POT if it wants.
We don't get hemp biodiesel because the oil, nuke, and pig folks are down with spinning medical marijuana media, all seeking no case in fact, churning a BURN case to the US Supreme Court, to suppress all facts of 25K lightly processed products, particularly hemp biodiesel, which makes US CO2-neutral and energy independent in the US, and lets California propose to raise its credit, 50th of 50 states.
Schwarzy wants gas-cooled nukes to make H2, and you can put H2 right through your skin, and kill yourself with a bubble, never mind how it blew up that Hindenburg all to crap and it can do that again.
I know about cruise missiles almost on the way, that make nukes a disaster, already, and more would be worse. INCOMING ALERT! Don't build more domestic nuclear plants. Without these facts and those of US obstruction of hemp as energy source, there was no case for fraud by the USA, which is at fraud severally and participates in a false controversy with pot growers, yet persists.
The US won't get EVERYBODY right away, they'll just keep us under surveillance and steal whatever is worth anything, from whomever. If they try to fund big raids NOW, I doubt the republic will last to 2020. They don't have funding infrastructure for the drug war, which feeds the denial by the idiot public, that pot is anything BUT a drug. But the public can't grasp funding basics, and the US gets to keep at us for their lack of any understanding to be put to any use. Vote for WHAT?
Most folks are too stoned to do accounting homework, much less smoke a joint and figure out a fraud. The asshole pot growers KNEW or should have known they could not petition THAT lord with the prayer they used. They wanted to make MONEY, like the corporate copouts you guys listen to, and they played off the big picture.
Anybody do motions in DC?
Last edited by bobgnote; 06-07-2005 at 06:33 PM.
BobGnote has my vote
Originally posted by Dr. Love
Let me know when you've come off the high horse and decided to walk amongst the common man again.
no, people usually can make me sick internally, but it usually never surfaces...alas you are right and I should just let the natural order of the self centered, self loving, and myopic view of the ones who's only purpose is of their selves and their kind carry on....
the world turns...
horse trots off into the sunset, and I walk....
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Prosecutions Unlikely of Medical Pot Users
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 10:23 AM
WASHINGTON -- Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public.
"The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana."
Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
Link
we will see...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote