Medicinal Marijuana + Supreme Court
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/29/sc....ap/index.html
Quote:
Personally i believe that all drugs should be legal for use in any way an individual sees fit. If the government feels the need to enforce anything it should be the way doctors distribute these drugs. If a doctor is to tell someone how to use a drug they should know what it does, and the problems it may cause. However if an idividual wishes to medicate themselves they should be allowed to. Manufacturing of experimental non-natural drugs (ones that a company patents) could be under some government supervision, especially when it comes to the way doctors distribute it. But thats about it. This is a whole other issue but i felt the need to explain my views on drugs for reference. |
The question before the court really isn't if marijuana has medical uses, but if state law can trump federal law. As such they should rule against the states in this case reguardless of the medical issues.
It is the federal law which should be changed. |
States rights to govern itself or federal oversight.........right first time.
|
Somehow it's okay for people to use Vicodin, Valium, Viagra, Darvocet, etc. recreationally and to have that use subsidized by taxpayers, but when you cut Big Pharmacy out of the loop and grow your own cancer medicine you're threatening the fabric of society. Uh huh I see how this works. We'll all be popping Soma with our coffee soon.
I will be very interested in Rehnquist's decision. I hope he understands that not everyone can afford the healthcare he recieves. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not sure if you're being coy but yes I believe that many Federal Drug laws exist solely to protect the holdings of big corporations. There's a fairly strong money trail, hell it's a money interstate, from the Pharmacutical industry to the Bush administration who happen to be the ones bringing this to court. |
was marijuana addictive in the late 19th century?
here is a webhistory of these laws: http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread05.html the origin story is interesting. not exactly what you might expect. |
Quote:
roachboy beat me to it :o |
I will be the first to say that marijuana is not as bad as most of the schedule I drugs, in terms of addiction and side effects.
That being said I see no proof that its corporations that are behind keeping it illegal, nor do I see that the pressing issue with the Supreme court. Now since the supreme court is a bit wacky lately, they may decide they should decide law instead of 'the people' again, but that is another issue. |
Well ostensibly no, drug laws are not enacted or enforced to protect corporations directly. But let's be clear, we're talking about the right for sick people to grow an herb in their house that makes them feel better with a doctor's approval and a license from the state. Who in this situation has the most to lose? The drug manufacturers certainly, but also organized crime. The black market value for pot would plummet if sick people no longer had to "find a college student" to purchase the drug through illegal channels.
|
Hmm, what I have heard of the origins of the, at least federal, marijuana ban were that it was a joint effort between the tobacco industry and lumber/paper industry which successfully lobbied to make it and all hemp products made illegal to keep it from cutting into their business.
Is this right or wrong? |
Quote:
|
Yeah, of course they wouldn't just come out and say that. They just gave plenty of money to congressmen, maybe funded studies about the harmful, moral shattering effects of marijuana and let it take it's course.
I find it easy to picture big pharma doing the same thing today to keep it illegal in all phases. It's a drug that is relatively cheap, especially as it can be grown easily at home. That cuts into the tens of thousands of dollars a year they can make on each individual for pain reduction, appetite enhancers etc... It's a logical business decision, just not an ethical one. |
There were many reasons for the current drug laws we have, some have been mentioned already in this thread. Marijuana was also made illegal because those scary dark skinned mexicans smoked it and this was a good excuse to arrest them. Orientals used opium a lot, those guys didn't look quite european enough. So racism was a big part of it.
|
Another corollary being the affluent suburban white housewifes doing coke and "freebase" in the 70s and eighties but once it hit the intercity it was suddenly a "crack" epidemic. Yep good ol' fashioned American racism.
|
Quote:
That's the version I learned in History of Narcotics from the crim/soc perspective. |
And here I was thinking that perhaps the most important reason for it being illegal is because of the potential to fuck up the health care system even more.
|
Quote:
|
I find it hypocritical that we make marijuana illegal because it "may" cause health problems, but leave tabacoo legal, and we know it causes health problems. Plus people abuse oxycotton if they can get their hands on it and oxycotton is legal for medicinal use, so why cant marijuana be legal for medical use?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour. Go home tonight take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause You know what the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs... The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.
-Hicks :suave: |
Quote:
|
This case and this thread really isn't about the kind of recreational drug use that leads to a Magical Mystery Tour. It is more about the drugs that George Harrison had available to him on his deathbed sick with cancer. I'm sure George was, at the most, a phone call to Paul away from all the marijuana he could possibly want.
|
FYI, as noted above, as much as the spinsters want to say this is about health care, this case is really about states' rights: can the federal government prohibit something in a state when the state says it is legal?
The health care issue provides the backdrop for the case, and holds some persuasive value for those making the arguments on either side (pro pot: "these people are in pain! why won't you let us help them?" anti pot: "these laws are loosely-worded stepping stones to legalization! won't someone think of the children?"). But, again, this case is not about health care. The Supreme Court is not deciding whether pot laws are good or bad, and is not deciding whether pot has medical applications. I am curious, though, about a correlation: what percentage of people who support medical marijuana laws also support decriminalization? In other words, how many people on states' rights side of this issue also want to be able to smoke up legally? Assuming the percentage is pretty high (no pun intended), is this all a smokescreen (pun intended, since I'm on a roll) for legalization? |
Quote:
|
I am all for decriminalization. I would like to smoke it legally. It is an issue of freedom of choice to do with your own body, what you want. The drug is no more harmful in moderation than alcohol and in excess the same as regular tobacco usage. Our society is hypocritical in it's selective criminalization.
That said, I can settle now to allow people who need the drug to be able to have access to it to provide them with the best possible means of therapy. It isn't a smokescreen to me, just cause I do want to see both. |
When you think of the medical bills the government already pays for alchohol and tabaco health issues, do we need to add more?
I'm all for drug legalization but ONLY from a libertarian view point. When you are sick/dying/starving/whatever from your habbit, we don't foot the bill. |
I think there are too many vested interests with Drug money for drugs to ever be legalized. I was watching some movie about Bush and 9/11, the guy was a former LA cop who exposed the CIA selling crack in the inner city... at any rate, there is so much drug money tied up in our exchange and economies that we would bottom out if they were made legal, something with the SEC, I can't remember, I was probably stoned and or getting stoned while watching it.
That being said, you know something is fucked up when the average person convicted of a non-violent marijuana charge serves more time that a rapist or person convicted of man slaughter. |
The DEA has done some horrible things in its time, including raiding a house of old people who grew and used their legal medical marijuana in cali. They raided the place, held some of these people at gunpoint, and destroyed the whole crop. Can you imagine someone bursting through your front door and taking you're medication that if you don't take you'll get very ill.
|
Here is what I want to see happen. I want to see the feds arrest someone in say California for having legal pot (according to state law). Then as a result the California police arrest the feds for false imprisionment. This would definatly bring the issue to the front of american politics.
|
Federal law trumps state law, so the arrest would be legal, they aren't arresting them under the jurisdiction of the state.
|
Quote:
|
No it is but how long did it take for that to happen? The supreme court likes to push cases that are in the middle to the side and not rule on them.
Also it is in the supreme court but being in the supreme court isn't as good as being on the front page of the newspaper. A big stink would really get things rolling along. |
Quote:
Here is the short version, as best as I recall without bothering to look back at original sources: Under the Constituion, Congress has certain specific areas in which it can make laws, among which are laws to regulate interstate commerce. Over the years, Congress has used that power to enact laws that really aren't directed at interstate commerce, per se, but which were justified on the basis that the issues they were addressing had an effect on interstate commerce. Congress's authority to pass the the Civil Rights Acts, for example, were derived from the right to make laws affecting interstate commerce. (I won't bother going into the rationale - suffice to say that Congress decided, and the Supreme Court agreed, that civil rights violations affect interstate trade) So, the issue here is where California has said that it is ok to grow and sell marijuana entirely within the state of California, , does Congress have the authority to stop it? |
Quote:
You're right though that the supreme court isn't deciding the efficacy of marijuana-based medication, they aren't qualified to do so. They are deciding whether a state has the right to legalize a substance for medical use that the federal government has decreed illegal. This case could very well set a precedent for states seeking to import pharmaceuticals from Canada et al. |
Alcohol and tobacco are legal and some of the most powerful international conglomerates in the world. Both are killers. But dammit, I really enjoy them.
Cannabis is not going to lose the war on drugs. Itīs a fantasy to think that somehow government efforts will wipe "reefer madness" out. I drink alcohol. I smoke the herb. I know which of the two is a true danger. Donīt you? jeez, taxation of marijuana is one of the only remote chances there is to knock some shit out of the deficit. Either that or more billions squandered on an absolutely unwinnable fight. Medical and recreative use of this plant date thousands of years. Prohibition since my granpas days. Look up Hearst and DuPont. Modern society is still swallowing 80 year old propaghanda. |
I have given this a bump because the Supreme Court is likely to make a decision on this next month. The specific issue is:
Can federal agents raid the homes of California patients who grow marijuana for their own use. Although the medical use of marijuana is legal in California and nine other states, federal authorities say they can override those states laws. As others have mentioned above, the feds need to rely on interstate commerce precidents to defend their position. But, in this case the patients grew their own with a doctor's Rx, it was legal in the state, and they had not crossed state lines. So what am I missing here? What other precident are the feds relying on to further their case? There are already laws in place to confront abuses of the law, both by the state and the feds. I see this particular issue as an infringement on states' rights and I hope it will be struck down. |
I don't believe that Federal Law shoudl trump state laws, unless there is an inter-state facet to the issue... and in this case, there is not.
I remember reading an article about federal agents arresting a guy for his marijuana use, citing it was against federal law even if not against state law. The guy was 76 or something, cancer patient, been confined to a wheelchair for the past decade or so. Now tell me- exactly WHO or WHAT is the government trying to protect by arresting people such as that? There's no "common good" they're looking out for by handcuffing a living-in-constant-agonizing-pain old man in a wheelchair. Also, from the article, how can you define a crime as involving the legitimate medicinal use of a drug by a woman who has a brain tumor and scoliosis and just wants to live without excrutiating pain. It's too bad they're not comatose, because THEN they'd be looked after. /schiavo dig. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project