Welcome to Deleted Logic Community Login | Register | Faq  

    Deleted Logic Community
  A Community for discussions on the Human Experience.
Search    
   

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Started by Smokin@420.bud at 06-06-2005 2:12 PM. Topic has 6 replies.

Print Search Next Thread »
  06-06-2005, 2:12 PM
Smokin@420.bud is not online. Last active: 9/2/2005 4:39:52 PM Smokin@420.bud



Top 10 Posts
Joined on 05-29-2005
State of Euphoria
Posts 77
Angry [:@]Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
 
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 involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case.

Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case. Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.

In a dissent, Justice 

Sandra Day O'Conner said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

Justice Dept spokesman John Nowacki said the department is pleased with the court's decision, but refused additional comment about whether federal prosecutors would pursue cases against people like Monson.

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.

"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday.

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 (California women) 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.

"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 in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence thomas.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated 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 were 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."

 Alan Hopper, an American Civil libertys union attorney, said that local and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.

The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. 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, Calif., 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.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

===========================================================

So because of some Doctors making a few $ by over perscribing Drugs, people who need Medical Marijuana cant legally have it .   What kind of BS excuse is that


If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

   Report 
  06-06-2005, 8:27 PM
Michael Sarver is not online. Last active: 12/5/2005 8:03:51 AM Michael Sarver



Top 10 Posts
Joined on 02-16-2005
A Special Place
Posts 149
Re: Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote
We've been watching this stuff for some time.

We all know that the truth is merely in the roots of political finance and gain.

1) You cannot tax marijuana sufficiently to please the government. Even with the cost of papers, bongs, carbs...

We can buy all that stuff at any head shop for the purpose of tobacco use because tobacco is much harder to cultivate... So we bow and cough to Phillip Morris.

2) A sham like "The War on Drugs" exists to keep our hand in countries that clandestine ops would be questioned otherwise. It is also a way to sieze that dope so that our government can get added funding. By now this is simply a redundancy: Making money off the drugs to fuel the war against it.

3) Most importantly, this is the Fed telling the states (once again) that they can NOT have sovreignity.


There are a great many laws that should only exist on the state level.
The big problem is that people will be able to one day self-medicate. They will turn less to the system for answers.

Same sad story since the 1950's.

BTW... Sorry I haven't been by yet... Been workin a lot.
We''l have to include you on the next shooting trip. Mo Val is on the way to one of our favorite spots.
"I did something naughty again..."
   Report 
  06-07-2005, 1:11 AM
Smokin@420.bud is not online. Last active: 9/2/2005 4:39:52 PM Smokin@420.bud



Top 10 Posts
Joined on 05-29-2005
State of Euphoria
Posts 77
Re: Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote

1) You cannot tax marijuana sufficiently to please the government. Even with the cost of papers, bongs, carbs...

it is so simple thats why the FED cant figure it out

  1. make it so you need a Special permit to grow the more you grow the more the permit costs
  2. the grower (wholeseller) can only sell to a licenced Retailer (just like a alcohol) and of course that licence isnt cheap
  3. Taxing it wouldnt be hard either just like Cigarettes, lets see at 100% tax per pack of Joints the Fed could make more than the Growers and Sellers combined
  4. make it so the people who wanna skip paying the Tax or for permits they go to jail if someone needs to be put in jail

if Pharmacutical Co were to try and make it legal it would be but they dont know how to get a foothold on a farmers crop so what we need is Big Tabbaco and a Pharmacutical Co to get together and figure out how to make it profitable for them     

its to bad we live in such a Greedy Society


If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

   Report 
  06-07-2005, 8:55 AM
NighEve is not online. Last active: 6/7/2005 4:42:08 PM NighEve

Top 10 Posts
Joined on 06-07-2005
Posts 3
Re: Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote

The federals said is best.  They will not go after the user ..only the suppliers.. they just pushed this to show they had authority over teh state statutes that allowed it.

I'm not for drugs but I think that's childish. Many drugs are made from things that are illegal.. if the doctor can prescribe it and it helps, then people should have access.


   Report 
  06-07-2005, 9:56 AM
Smokin@420.bud is not online. Last active: 9/2/2005 4:39:52 PM Smokin@420.bud



Top 10 Posts
Joined on 05-29-2005
State of Euphoria
Posts 77
Re: Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote

heres a good read on this

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2005/05/gonzales_v_raic.html

it tells of how they decided on this by using a old 1938 case involving homegrown Wheat and interstate/international commerce and how it would lower the price

which doesnt make any sence at all since theres No legal market for Marijuana that it could effect


If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

   Report 
  06-17-2005, 12:20 AM
Michael Sarver is not online. Last active: 12/5/2005 8:03:51 AM Michael Sarver



Top 10 Posts
Joined on 02-16-2005
A Special Place
Posts 149
Re: Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote

I've been calling for state sovreignity for a while.

Let each community decide it's own moral codes and watch the nation relax in the new freedom. Counties will be as Liberal or Conservative as they want.

And we'll finally be able to tell all those Rand Institute psuedo-intellectuals "Fuck off and starve... Shit really WILL work out now."

My manifesto?

"Atlas dry-humped a girl in line at the Primus concert while hitting his last blunt before cleaning up and going to DeVry."

 

"Peace, love... and afro-grease."


"I did something naughty again..."
   Report 
  06-25-2005, 10:54 PM
Reefer is not online. Last active: 12/15/2005 6:29:06 AM Reefer



Top 10 Posts
Joined on 02-10-2005
Κάπου πάρα πολύ όμορφος για καθέναν αλλά με.
Posts 105
Re: Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
Reply Quote
Mike, nice.

Everyone's shitting all over themselves for nothing.  This ruling just clears up an old lawsuit from several years ago.  We all know that Federal Law supercedes State law, so just get your weedy-weedy from the same stockist that always fills your prescription, and keep it on the down-low goddammit!  This particular ruling means nothing, just a re-statement of what we already knew in this Federal Charlie-Foxtrot.

   Report 
Post
Deleted Logic C... » Rights » Other Amendment... » Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

Powered by Community Server, by Telligent Systems