Supreme Court upholds fed ban on medical marijuana

“Interesting: The two judges I most often disagree with and the most consistently thoughtful amongst the conservative judges are the ones I agree with. The others, including the two Democratic appointees voted on the other side of the issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050606/pl_nm/court_marijuana_dc”

“Good decision and good move by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Gonna have to dissent myself ...

I think this was a mistake. Leave it to the states.”

“pot is the debil.

i believe we should completely outlaw all drugs that might have a negative effect on some people.

starting with chocolate and asprin.”

“I guess those people dying of cancer would pose a risk to society under the influence of marijuana? Grannies toting oxygen bottles and smoking dope? Who knows what more will threaten the very pillars of democracy?

[/sarcasm font]”

“every now and then the worlds align, sarge and I agree on something”

“I love you man!”

“I know Ewk. Who-da thunk it?”

“"He said the question before the court was not whether it was wise to enforce the federal law in these circumstances, but only whether Congress has the power to adopt such a law."

Has anyone seen the decision?

What was the issue?”

“The quote in my post was from the article.”

“http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2004/ashvrai.html

This issue was Congressional Power.

Whether the use of marijuana in this circumstance is a good thing or bad thing is irrelevant.”

“could someone please quote the part of the constitution where it says the fed gov. can or should have the power to outlaw medicines?

i can't find that part.


thanks in advance-

sacco”

“Interstate Commerce Clause”

“i find it odd that so many other drugs are legal if perscribed, but marijuana isn't. what gives on this?”

“What gives is Congress and Bubya.

[sarcasm font]

Can't have terminal cancer patients going around stoned. My God, they might take off their clothes or something!

[/sarcasm font]”

“

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes



for real chili? this means that the federal gov't has the power make certain medicines illegal?

i'm not even (for once) being a wise ass here. i just don't get it.
last edited: 6/06/05 2:43:46 PM”

“From reading the case, it appears the sole questions is whether Congress had the authority to enact the Law under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

I think they correctly found that Congress did have that power.

The Supreme Court didn't review the "ethical" considerations of marijuana use in this instance, Congress did. The SC merely ruled that Congress didn't abuse its power.”

“Read the entire opinion. It appears Congress has to power to declare which drugs are illegal.”

“pedxing, the reason you agree with Renquist in this is that you wanted the same finding but for entirely different reasons.”

“wow, that's quite an interpretation.”

“i think from now on, whenever they state their rulings they should just say "cause we said so."

if people insist on a more detailed explaination they can just point to the elastic clause and say "nya nya nya nya nyaaaaa"


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

“Is it still legal to smoke Viagra?”

“No, I believe that method of delivery is inconsistant with it's labeling; hence, it's a federal offense. Should I call your neighborhood DEA, or would you prefer to turn yourself in?


Ah -- the good ol' Interstate Commerce clause... Isn't that how they nailed Lester Maddox and his restaurant?

Out-of-state catsup!!”

“I smoke crack-Viagra and follow it up with a stiff drink.”

“I just voted in the AOL poll. Over 120,000 people have voted so far and over 80% believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal. Looks like this one needs to go to the states for a vote. Please help the hurting.”

“Druggy.”

“Yeah, take it to the states man. Because I mean, if AOL users say something, it must be right. Then again, they were dumb enough to sign up for AOSmell in the first place...”

“E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL
Poll: Most Older Americans Back Medical Pot
Saturday, December 18, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141947,00.html


WASHINGTON — Nearly three-fourths of older Americans support legalizing marijuana (search) for medical use, according to a poll done for the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors.

More than half of those questioned said they believe marijuana has medical benefits, while a larger majority agreed the drug is addictive.

AARP (search), with 35 million members, says it has no political position on medical marijuana and that its local branches have not chosen sides in the scores of state ballot initiatives on the issue in recent elections.

But with medical marijuana at the center of a Supreme Court (search) case to be decided next year, and nearly a dozen states with medical marijuana laws on their books, AARP decided to study the issue.

"The use of medical marijuana applies to many older Americans who may benefit from cannabis," said Ed Dwyer, an editor at AARP The Magazine, which will discuss medical marijuana in its March/April issue appearing in late January.

Among the 1,706 adults polled in AARP's random telephone survey in November, opinions varied along regional and generational lines and among the 30 percent of respondents who said they have smoked pot. AARP members represented 37 percent of respondents.


Overall, 72 percent of respondents agreed "adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it." Those in the Northeast (79 percent) and West (82 percent) were more receptive to the idea than in the Midwest (67 percent) and Southwest (65 percent). In Southern states, 70 percent agreed with the statement.

Though 69 percent of those age 70 and older said they support legal medical marijuana use, less than half agreed it has medical benefits. Seventy percent of respondents age 45-49 said they believe in the medical benefits of pot, as did 59 percent of those in the 50-69 age group.

And while 74 percent of all people surveyed said pot is addictive, older respondents were more likely to think so: 83 percent of those 70 and older, compared with 61 percent of those aged 45-49.

Generational lines also divided those who have smoked pot: Just 8 percent of those 70 and older admitted having lit up, compared with 58 percent of the 45-49 group, 37 percent of those between 50 and 59 and 15 percent of the 60-69 set.

National polls in recent years have found majority support for allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether federal agents can pursue sick people who use homegrown marijuana with their doctors' permission and their states' approval.

The Bush administration has argued that allowing medical marijuana in California would undermine federal drug control programs, and that pot grown for medical use could end up on the illegal market and cross state lines.


The AARP poll of adults age 45 and older was conducted Nov. 10-21 by International Communications Research of Media, Pa. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
last edited: 6/06/05 6:46:59 PM”

““Yeah, take it to the states man. Because I mean, if AOL users say something, it must be right. Then again, they were dumb enough to sign up for AOSmell in the first place...”
Nigal

It is even worse than that Nigal. I pay for two ISP's. I have COX Cable Internet service and pay for AOL on top of that just to please the wife. An extra $180 a year just for AOHELL.”

“Can't say I'd use "majority knows best" logic in a case where "74 percent of all people surveyed said pot is addictive". That's why we need elected people who have time to research the facts to make these decisions.”

“buteax - Don't tell anybody, but I have this CD I'm not using I could mail you. Gives you like 1 Bazillion and 24 hours of free AOL! Again, keep it secret!”

“cant we all just smoke a bong?”

“weed has been a great help to many cancer patients -nausua is much decreased and appetite is improved-the thc pills have not been shown to help nearly as well-why is somebody with such a serious disease denied something that can at least make their life a little more tolerable-”

“weed has been a great help to many cancer patients -nausua is much decreased and appetite is improved-the thc pills have not been shown to help nearly as well-why is somebody with such a serious disease denied something that can at least make their life a little more tolerable-”

“say that again?”

“Snythetic cannabis has been available by prescription for a long time. All the medical benefits, none of the detrimental effects. The move to allow medical use of cannabis has nothing to do with medicine, as cannabis has failed and will continue to fail FDA testing.

Forget any more states trying to do an end run and legalize cannabis for medical reasons. Federal criminal law trumps state legalization.”

“I once had the lovely job of guarding medical grade cocaine. 3 55 gallon drums of it. Purity out of this world, dyed hot pink to set it apart from other powder cocaine. I had a shotgun and a sidearm and was in a teeny room with one door. If medical cocaine is legal, why can't medical mary jane be legal?”

“MARINOL® is a unique prescription medicine that relieves multiple symptoms has been around since 1986. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved MARINOL®, which unlike marijuana, is safe and effective for medical treatment.”

“The thing I can't figure out is why all the potheads want it to be legal for medicinal reasons? Are all these potheads sick and need it? Or are they really looking at this as a stepping stone to legal weed?”

““pedxing, the reason you agree with Renquist in this is that you wanted the same finding but for entirely different reasons.”
chili36
2:44:52 PM
6/06/05


Chili, the finding I "want" and the finding I agree with are often two different things. I agree with the decision, because it seems to me that homegrown pot which is not sold or bartered is neither interstate, nor commerce, and the States should be allowed to decide whethter it could be used in these purposes. It seems to me that the anti-drug mentality over-ruled the constitution here... or as I used to tell people I was training in psychiatric diagnosis, knowing the "right answer" interfered with using the agreed on procedures and definitions to come up with the answer (or the decision people wanted interefered with the them making the decision they ought to agree with).

Obviously, I know less than a lot of people about Law and the Supreme Court, but I do think of O'Connor as a principled conservative who really does pay attention to the constitution - and who works very hard to be objective in her decisions.

I also wonder if some in the Supreme Court are afraid of the growing animus in many quarters and that colors their decisions.”

“By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer


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.”

“many patients have not gotten the relief from synthetic marijuana-that they have gotten from the real thing -whats the big freakin deal-if medical coccaine is legal whats the problem here -what the hell are you afraid of -why deny an effective treatment to someone with a very serious disease--”

“There are five criteria a substance must meet before the FDA will allow marijuana to be prescribed. They include:

knowledge of substance’s chemical structure, such that it can be synthetically reproduced;
adequate safety studies;
adequate studies showing the efficacy of the substance in relieving symptoms;
widely available scientific evidence about the substance;
a general acceptance of the substance by experts in the field.

The synthetic version of marijuana, Marinol ™ is approved by the FDA and is available by prescription since 1986. Regular marijuana cannot pass the already too liberal FDA criteria. Other drugs and Marinol have scientifically been show to be more effective than marijuana in treating people with very serious diseases.”

“well then lets just smoke it for the hell of it!”

“I never have tried an illegal drug. I've been drug tested every year since I was 17, first in the military then by my employer. I've got 18 years till I retire from my job. The day I retire, I am going to smoke my first joint. Who wants to join me?
last edited: 6/07/05 10:30:46 PM”

“I know pot smokers and I know alcoholics-the damage alcohol has done to so many people and their families is incredible-”

“When you buy cannabis, you support foreign and domestic organized crime. Where does you marijuana money go? To people like PAVON-REYES:

PAVON-REYES, Jorge Armando

WANTED FOR:
Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketerring, 18 USC 1952(b)
Conspiracy to Kidnap a Federal Agent, 18 USC 1201(c)
Kidnapping of a Federal Agent, 18 USC 1201(a)(5)
Felony Murder of a Federal Agent, 18 USC 1111, 1114

AKA: Jorge Armando PAVON, Armando PAVON, Armando REYES
RACE: Hispanic
SEX: Male
HEIGHT: 5'5"
WEIGHT: 150
HAIR: Brown
EYES: Brown
DOB: 01/20/1952
POB: Veracruz, Mexico
LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: Victoria 908 Centro ZP, Mecico City, Mexico
NOTE: PAVON-REYES and accomplices distributed several tons of marijuana and cocaine in the United States, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico. From October 1984 to approximately February 9, 1985, PAVON-REYES and others kidnapped, tortured and finally murdered an undercover DEA agent to prevent him from interfering with their marijuana distribution operation.”

“if weed was made legal the criminal element would disappear--”