TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

(CBS/AP) U.S. government authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a defeat for medical marijuana advocates who had lobbied successfully in 10 states to allow marijuana use for medical reasons. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. The ruling is a serious setback not only for proponents of medical marijuana who say it is helpful for serious and chronic pain, but also for states' rights, reports CBS News Correspondent Bob Fuss. Ten states have legalized medicinal marijuana � eight by direct votes of the people � but the federal government arrests and prosecutes patients who use it and the Supreme Court has now ruled they can continue to do so, reports Fuss. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California. In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses. In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates. The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use." The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities. Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, California, has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard. In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

any chance of the ACLU jumping onto this and maybe possibly keeping this from happening?

Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Itarill� any chance of the ACLU jumping onto this and maybe possibly keeping this from happening?

Do you use marijuana....medicinally?

I drink medicinally.


Anyway this sucks ... nothing can be done, but let's see if conservatives jump on these "activist" judges who are infringing upon state's rights.

If marijuana is a federally controlled substance similar to uranium, radioactive material, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroine, legal drugs, etc. I don't see how the federal government would not have a right to raid their homes/etc.


Ideally it shouldn't be a federally controlled substance but it is, and so the government has the right/ability to do these things.

Although I am a big proponent of state's rights, if the courts were to rule for the State in this matter, then legally there would be nothing to hold back the use of other hard drugs and controlled substances

Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Itarill� any chance of the ACLU jumping onto this and maybe possibly keeping this from happening?

no. as much as the ACLU wants to influence a superlegislature at the judicial level, they can't.
the high court did what they are supposed to do. uphold federal law. marijuana is still a class A narcotic. the Supreme Court, in effect, told Congress that if you want to prosecute at the federal level you have had and always will have the right to do so, so long as marijuana remains a class a narcotic. it's very simple. you want to change the law? do it at the Congressional level.

Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you use marijuana....medicinally?

no i don't... i'm only wondering because i feel for those who are battling terminal illnesses and truly need it to help them cope and that i'm a little bothered that the government would take such measures, even though they have to right to do so...

Re: Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Itarill� no i don't... i'm only wondering because i feel for those who are battling terminal illnesses and truly need it to help them cope and that i'm a little bothered that the government would take such measures, even though they have to right to do so...

Does anybody truly need marijuana? It may help with pain, but I think you may be overstepping a tad.

Re: Re: Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Does anybody truly need marijuana? It may help with pain, but I think you may be overstepping a tad.

do excuse me, but yes, you're right... i guess a better way to say it is, if it does help, why not?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot.

quote:

Originally posted by Itarill� do excuse me, but yes, you're right... i guess a better way to say it is, if it does help, why not?

Personally, I love the shit, but only in moderation and only when used responsibly. I have no problems with people using it in the privacy of their own homes, especially if they are terminally ill and it eases their pain.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Itarill� do excuse me, but yes, you're right... i guess a better way to say it is, if it does help, why not?

i think you need to see through this falacy of using people who are terminally ill or very ill to further a much broader agenda that is to legalize pot completely. they are being used as a stepping stone. personally, i think the tactic is disgusting. in addition, there are ways to regulate the use of cannabis exclusively for those same people, which i am all for but i won't get into right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus If marijuana is a federally controlled substance similar to uranium, radioactive material, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroine, legal drugs, etc. I don't see how the federal government would not have a right to raid their homes/etc. Ideally it shouldn't be a federally controlled substance but it is, and so the government has the right/ability to do these things. Although I am a big proponent of state's rights, if the courts were to rule for the State in this matter, then legally there would be nothing to hold back the use of other hard drugs and controlled substances

The constitution does not directly cede Congress with powers to ban substances such as uranium, radioactive material, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc. That jurisdiction is principally left to the states. The only way congress has a say so in the matter is if those substances are related to commerce in any way whatsoever. What is retarded about this ruling is that the marijuana is home grown, it is not sold or traded, and it does not cross state lines. What�s even more retarded about the ruling is that it seems to go against the very logic that the Supreme Court used to strike down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, when it stated that the federal government overstepped its jurisdiction with the commerce clause then.

And if citizens want to use hard drugs and controlled substances that should be the decision of the state, so long as they do not engage in commerce.

Edit: but it is refreshing to see the conservatives here side with the liberal justices. Most of the conservative justices disagreed. Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas wrote the disenting opinion.

quote:

Thomas commented that if Congress could regulate a product that was never bought or sold or taken across state lines, it could regulate anything. In the dissent, Justice O'Connor defended the right "that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3215657

Bad Rehnquist!! Bad Thomas!! When will these liberal activist justices ever learn??? But seriously, are you guys really states rights advocates or is that a conservative catch phrase that you just throw around? Would you care to critique rhenquist's and thomas's disent and demonstrate how they're wrong?

quote:

Justice Thomas, dissenting. Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. I Respondents' local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." U. S. Const., Art. I, �8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents' conduct, however, is not "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" Congress' restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, �8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents' conduct. A As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586-589 (concurring opinion). The Clause's text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term " 'commerce' consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes." Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586-587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term "commerce" is consistently used to mean trade or exchange--not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112-125 (2001). The term "commerce" commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857-862 (2003). Even the majority does not argue that respondents' conduct is itself "Commerce among the several States." Art. I, �8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California--it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. On this traditional understanding of "commerce," the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. �801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character. The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana. Instead, it bans the entire market--intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial--for marijuana. Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress' commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial. . . .

I'm sure all the federalists are jerking off to the implications of this ruling.

Hey, let's enact a federal law barring whistling in the shower!! (1) People who whistle in the shower don't concentrate on cleaning themselves; (2) therefore, they take longer showers; (3) therefore, they use more hot water; (4) therefore, they use more energy to heat the water; (5) therefore, they increase demand for energy in the interstate market; and (6) thus, Congress can regulate whistling in the shower as a means of regulating the interstate market for energy. Yay interstate commerce clause!!! What would we do without you and your blank check interpretation??

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i think you need to see through this falacy of using people who are terminally ill or very ill to further a much broader agenda that is to legalize pot completely. they are being used as a stepping stone. personally, i think the tactic is disgusting. in addition, there are ways to regulate the use of cannabis exclusively for those same people, which i am all for but i won't get into right now.

sometimes i do wonder, but never really give much thought into it...

Re: Re: Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Does anybody truly need marijuana? It may help with pain, but I think you may be overstepping a tad.

yeah i am with you i think they are just pot heads who can't stop smoking. my father would put all those ppotheads back in line

Re: Re: u.s government looks to prosecute the sick people for using pot...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you use marijuana....medicinally?

yeah, cause why would she care if it doesnt affect her...

anyway, it sucks, pot should be legalised entirly...

Lying: The Government's Drug

Lying: The Government's Drug
How Raich helps us delude ourselves
Matt Welch



In my thankfully limited experience with observing addiction it has always seemed to me that the true "gateway drug" is not marijuana, or even California Coolers, but lying. First comes the nervous exaggeration, then the covering-up of various misdemeanors... and by the time those lies start sounding true, the main barrier to destructive behavior is access to the poison itself.

Well, the Supreme Court just gave the Drug War addicts in Congress and the White House the constitutional equivalent of a lifetime supply. No longer will the Commerce Clause present even a tiny weak spot on the dragon of national drug policy. As Drug Czar John Walters all but giggled Monday, "Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue."

Those who fret about morality in America, take note: Raich v. Gonzales codifies our status as a Nation of Liars.

Most of us�including vice presidents, Supreme Court nominees, governors, Beltway journalists�will sample illegal drugs during our lifetimes with zero negative long-term effects, and then vote every November for political parties who spend billions in tax dollars on nonsensical, ineffective ad campaigns like "Just because you survived drugs doesn't mean your kids will."

Our cops will lie about their pot-smoking past to get onto the force. Our diplomats, as I have observed personally, will lie about their pot-smoking past to get onto the Foreign Service, and in some cases enjoy the occasional recreational joint throughout the course of a distinguished and honorable career. Freelance journalists and other between-jobs white-collar workers will sooner leave the room than allow any second-hand pot smoke to seep into their systems, for fear of pre-employment drug tests at jobs that require no physical precision.

At the tip of the Lie Pyramid is Drug Czar Walters, which is hardly surprising, considering the Drug War's core fallacy. Despite using the fearful language and powerful tools of national emergency, governments on all levels are spending around $40 billion a year on a massive enforcement project in which 40 percent of all arrests are for possessing a drug that isn't remotely dangerous.

As any addict can tell you, a big lie needs to be supported by a network of smaller fibs, and so the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has willfully lied about stronger pot leading to more addiction, about the notion that marijuana "probably won't kill you" (ain't no "probably" about it); and, in what my colleague Ron Bailey described as a "horrific lie," about how recreational drug users directly finance terrorism. Walters has used federal tax money to campaign against state medical-marijuana initiatives, finished what Bill Clinton started with a doomed $1 billion advertising effort to convince Americans that their own harmless drug experiences were aberrational, and enthusiastically disguised a bunch of that as unlabeled pop culture propaganda.

The problem with constant lies, on an individual level, is that they're corrosive and addictive. Until you get caught, they can be an effective shortcut to a cherished goal, at the price of putting off urgent problems and creating new ones in their wake. When uttered collectively, with the full force of the government behind them, they can and have become powerful instruments to bash away at constitutional liberties that seemed untouchable 20 years ago.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion denying California medical marijuana users protection from federal agents who should have better things to do, pointed to "another avenue of relief"�Marijuana could be reclassified in the regulatory scheme, and "perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

Taking Stevens seriously means confronting head-on the tissue of lies that binds a policy that Americans themselves violate every day, with very few side effects. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) are reportedly reviving their amendment, voted down 272-153 two years ago, prohibiting federal law enforcement from spending one dime cracking down on medical-marijuana consumption now legal in 10 states. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has also recently introduced the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.

There has been some commentary these past days from federalist-leaning analysts along the lines of "well, it's not likely to have much practical effect anyway, so no need to get too upset." While understandable, this sentiment essentially makes peace with violence. Pooh-poohing Washington's expansion of the War Against Marijuana is a strategy that has played out, and failed. It's the lie we don't believe anymore.



Associate Editor Matt Welch is a columnist for Canada's National Post. His work is archived at mattwelch.com, where he also blogs.



http://www.reason.com/links/links060805.shtml

Belive the courts are throwing the ball back at Congress. Change the damn laws or end up with the same result...


[[[smoke]]]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.