Medicinal Marijuana - Is Bush a moron for opposing it?

Politicians shouldn't, the fda should.

that's there job. they decide if a drug is safe and an effective treatment. marijuana is as much research proves.

then doctors prescripe it to the patients letting them know any risks.

patients make the final decision.

as it stands, the people can't decide, the states can't decide, only bush can decide.

Bush has blocked attempts to make medicinal use an exemption to the federal ban. He is thus opposing the states rights to decide for themselves, ban it if they so desire.

He's banning the fda from doiing it's job, he's banning doctors from doing their job, he's banning terminally ill cancer patients from making their own decisions.

In conclusion, Bush is wrong.

I just remembered the case I was trying to remember:

County of Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft

It's a case of local state fighting Bush's federal government for the right to determine their medicinal marijuana laws.

How is Bush supporting the state's right to decide? The federal government is actively fighting it.

The County of Santa Cruz is a state?

Okay, okay I'm looking it up.

It is part of the state of california, a state that has attempted to determine their medicinal marijuana laws only to run into Bush's federal government opposing it with the use of force as well as opposing it legally.

The entity that brought the case is a pretty insignificant nit to pick. The case is challenging the federal government's authority to act over the state.

The County of Santa Cruz is fighting the case because that is the county in which the feds raided people who had local permission to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Since this thread has lurched into repetition, I will say once again, does anyone seriously think the $100 billion dollar a year alcohol industry wants to share profits with legalized recreational marijuana?

Fat chance.

The alcohol industry lobbyists are too influential to allow this to ever happen.

In the meantime, I hope victims of cancer, MS, HIV, and glaucoma continue to break the law and use this product as they desire. Just as not every law is wrong, not every law is correct.

Centroles, I will say one more time and then I'm done. The president cannot change a federal law. It has to be changed by an act of Congress.

Another case to read up on is Walters v. Conent

Graham Boyd, co-counsel for the plaintiffs said "The basic issue is that the practice of medicine is something that states regulate, and that has always been true for as long as medicine has been regulated in this country," Boyd said. "What's unusual about this case is that the federal government is saying the advice doctors give to patients ... is a federal concern, and that's never really been a federal claim before."

"We must 'show respect for the sovereign states that comprise our federal union,'" Chief Judge Mary Schroeder said. "That respect imposes a duty on federal courts, whenever possible, to avoid or minimize conflict between federal and state law, particularly in situations in which the citizens of a State have chosen to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

In his concurring opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski conceded that federal law would "normally" prevail when it conflicts with state law. However, in this case, the judge stated, the federal government policy "runs afoul" of its powers to regulate interstate commerce.

"Applied to our situation, this means that, much as the federal government may prefer that California keep medical marijuana illegal, it cannot force the state to do so," Kozinski wrote.

Daniel Abrahamson co-counsel for the Santa Cruz plaintiffs:

"There's no commerce, much less interstate commerce, when these patients were growing their marijuana and using it for their own medical purpose," Abrahamson said. "There was no sale of marijuana, there was no transfer of marijuana, there was no taking of marijuana by non-patients across state lines ... and so the predicate for federal government action is lacking altogether ... so it should not have the power to take such actions in the future."

"In the Conent case, (the federal government) really wants to overturn the voters' decisions ... so that's a real problem in terms of federalism" Abrahamson said. "In the WAMM case, it's very much trying to undermine the public health goals of the city and county of Santa Cruz and the state of California, not to mention the individual rights of the patients."

Here's another article that suggests that people may be able to legally grow their own pot for medical use, but it can't be sold to them?


By David Kravets, AP Legal Affairs Writer
Source: Associated Press

San Francisco -- A decision by a federal appeals court here approving the use and cultivation of medical marijuana did not address the broader question of whether medical marijuana can be bought and sold.

That issue, the next legal battle in the medical marijuana movement, still is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the same court ruled Tuesday that a congressional act outlawing marijuana can not apply in states with laws permitting sick people to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

In Tuesday's ruling, the appeals court said prosecuting medical marijuana users under a 1970 federal drug law is unconstitutional if the marijuana isn't sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.

The court, in explaining its reasoning, said states were free to experiment with their own laws and that the Constitution's Commerce Clause forbade federal intervention because the laws at issue did not impact commerce outside a state's boundaries.

"That means people could cultivate and consume cannabis for medical purposes free of federal interference, subject to state law," said Randy Barnett, a Boston University constitutional law scholar.

Alaska, Arizona, California Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state have laws that allow persons to grow, smoke or use medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, refusing to recognize medical marijuana laws, has raided several California patients' backyards, along with pot clubs that sell marijuana to the sick.

Most clubs, the only avenue by which many patients can obtain marijuana, have gone underground for fear of being raided.

California's 7-year-old medical marijuana law, the nation's first, does not expressly allow the sale of marijuana, but authorities in San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz and elsewhere have tacitly allowed clubs to operate.

The Justice Department declined comment on whether it would appeal Tuesday's decision. The ruling was the first time the federal Controlled Substances Act, which outlaws marijuana, heroin, LSD and other drugs, was declared unconstitutional as applied to medical marijuana.

"We are currently reviewing the court's ruling," Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said. "No determination has been made as to what our next step will be."

Jeff Jones, director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative, said the 9th Circuit panel's decision could bolster his bid to resume selling pot to the sick. Federal authorities shut the club down several years ago.

"We feel our case is more ripe now for an interpretation that creates affordable and safe access for these patients," Jones said.

The government first began cracking down on medical marijuana under the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration has continued the policy. The federal government maintains marijuana has no medical benefits, but patients suffering from cancer and other serious ailments say it relieves pain and nausea when no other drugs can.

The Oakland cooperative has a lawsuit pending before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit that it hopes will resolve the remaining legal questions that make it difficult for patients to obtain marijuana legally.

In 2001, the Supreme Court said the Oakland club could not sell marijuana based on the "medical necessity" of sick and dying customers.

Ruling against the club at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the court addressed only the medical necessity argument, but not other legal issues central to the debate, including Congress' ability to interfere with intrastate commerce, the right of states to experiment with their own laws and whether Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as an avenue to be pain free.

Justice Thomas wrote that the court would not decide those "underlying constitutional issues today."

Robert Raich, an attorney representing the Oakland cooperative, said the club has taken Thomas' statement to heart. The cooperative's case pending before the San Francisco appeals court, he said, addresses the issues the Supreme Court dodged two years ago.

"We took their invitation and are bringing back another case," Raich said.

A decision in that case is expected here any day.

Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Decision Does Not Sanction Marijuana Sales To The Sick

Source: Associated Press
Author: David Kravets, AP Legal Affairs Writer
Published: December 17, 2003
Copyright: 2003 Associated Press

Sorry no link available.

Here's a link: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17986.shtml

One anecdote I'd forgot was that in response to the feds, the city and county of Santa Cruz has a medicinal marijuana giveaway in their city hall courtyard.

It's funny how some people would rather agree with George Bush on medical care rather than the physician handling the case directly with the patient. I wouldn't trust George Bush as my physician any more than I trust him on Iraq.

George Bush has no say in the matter. As president he is sworn to uphold the constitution that includes an obligation to uphold the law of the land.

The following link is an article on the Supreme Court ruling in the matter of medical necessity re marijuana.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/ocbcopinion.htm

infowarrior, let's remember how this whole anti-pot thing started in the first place: William Randolph Hearst, who vehemently sought to discredit marijauna use because the hemp industry threatened his newspaper business. The alcohol industry really had nothing to do with it. I also think that they are already well-entrenched enough to not worry about continuing to make profits, especially given that alcohol is far more addictive than pot. More addicts, more sales, so I highly doubt it is a concern for them. The 'drugs' that are legal serve the dominator culture: alcohol, tobacco/nicotine, caffeine, sugar. These keep people in line. I say, if you don't like the marijauna laws in the US, move to Canada.

I wouldn't want congress to act as my physician either. Quoted from your post, "Congress determined that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use." How did they determine that?

This article postdates yours, and it talks about "physician's winning" not congress winning. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/14/thread14623.shtml

I've read a lot on this subject and while hearst had his part in banning of hemp ect...it was the temperance movement who started the anti-alcohol front which was then expanded to cover drugs (after prohibition proved to be a bigger headache and was legalized again).... Although this organization was a religious group in nature, most of the prohibition ideas it promoted were based on racist thinking and not medical or scientific information. Blacks smoked pot, chinese - opium, the irish used alcohol and they were a dirty lot, spreading disease and fighting in the streets. These beliefs were very much pushed as reasons and ways to control the great unwashed.

Congress, if they're worried about what pot does to people, they should ban cigarettes which has been proven to cause cancer. Their interest in stopping the use of pot, because they find no medical justification should provide them plenty of reasons to stop the use of cigarettes that harms health.

Jesus, I agree with McG about something (did the world just tilt?).
Everyone seems to be forgetting that we're talking about cancer and AIDS here. A large proportion of these people are going to die anyway. I have not yet heard even ONE logical reason why a terminally ill person should not be able to use ANYTHING that may give them some relief.

No matter how many times you claim that Bush has no say in the matter...

the fact remains that he as president told fellow republican members of congress to not pass an exception to the federal ban on marijuana.

surely, you are aware of just how much influence the president has in getting laws through congress.

wasn't the no child left behind policy bush's idea, wasn't the drug plan, the president even makes up the budgets for godsake?

wasn't it bush that pushed for the ban on stem cell research?

if the only leg you stand on is that bush is just the president and has no say in the legislation that congress passes, then you really don't have much of an arguement.

Respectfully disagree Centroles. And I don't think I have anything I can add to this thread.

Wilso, that's the only question that really matters.

My concern isn't the alcohol lobby, but the entrenched 'business' of the War on Drugs. It has become such a siphon for major budgetary spending that I can't imagine that they would go down without kicking and screaming.