|
|
| Supreme Court Wrote Law in Medical Marijuana Case |
|
Posted by FoM on June 09, 2001 at 10:33:59 PT By Bob Newland Source: Rapid City Journal 
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision regarding medical cannabis didn't change anything. It did, however, reveal the nine most powerful public policy manipulators in the world for the pandering, dishonest, conscienceless politicians they are.While contemplating that characterization and what follows, consider this: The U.S. Supreme Court also once said that runaway slaves had to be returned to their owners, and that U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry could be legally deprived of property and sent to concentration camps. In 1996, 5 million California voters (56 per cent) approved the "Compassionate Use Act," allowing people to use cannabis (marijuana) with a doctor's recommendation. The act also defined "caregivers" who could cultivate cannabis to supply patients' demand. Cooperatives were established to facilitate delivery of the herb to patients. Despite the change in California law, possession and distribution of cannabis are still illegal under federal law (states are not required to enforce federal laws). The feds charged the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op, operated by former Rapid Citian Jeff Jones, with distribution. Jones asked for - and was denied - the federal court's permission to use a "medical necessity" defense argument. Jones appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit agreed with Jones. Federal prosecutors appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on March 28. When the Supreme Court released its decision a few weeks ago, it agreed with the lower court that no one may say in federal court, "I grew and gave marijuana to that person because he needed it to stay alive and was too sick to grow his own." We ache for superlatives strong enough to describe the absurdity of the court's reasoning. The court and its defenders shamelessly assert that they're not supposed to "legislate from the bench"; that they were only asked whether there is a "medical necessity defense" under the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Clarence Thomas said in the unanimous decision: "The Cooperative's contention that a common-law medical necessity defense should be written into the Act is rejected. There is an open question whether federal courts ever have authority to recognize a necessity defense not provided by statute. But that question need not be answered to resolve the issue presented here, for the terms of the Act leave no doubt that the medical necessity defense is unavailable." By similar reasoning, the court could justify the Nazi "public order" laws. According to Thomas, these same justices could sit there with straight faces, instructing us, "We cannot locate within the Public Order Laws any 'religious freedom' exemption to the requirements that Jews sew yellow stars on their clothing or that Jews are no longer allowed to own businesses." Yes, the Controlled Substances Act states that cannabis has no medical value. When the Supreme Court sees ludicrous, dangerous and unconstitutional assertions written into law, its job is to overturn the law. Instead, this Court affirmed the earth's flatness, and told navigators to adjust their maps. Hundreds of scientific studies confirm the therapeutic value of cannabis. Tens of thousands of patients' own reports confirm cannabis' therapeutic value. In 1988, a Drug Enforcement Agency administrative law judge said, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. It is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence." The Supreme Court was presented briefs by more than a dozen medical organizations as to cannabis's therapeutic value. The U.S. government sends 300 marijuana cigarettes each month to each of eight patients granted "compassionate use" exemptions from federal law because the government knows they benefit from using marijuana. Knowing all this, the justices lied, saying their hands were tied by Congress. Why? It's really important that Congress protect the Controlled Substances Act. As it becomes more obvious that people gain relief from diseases and pain by using cannabis, then the whole myth of the evil of cannabis comes into question. Cannabis is effective over a wide range of medical conditions currently treated by expensive prescription medicines. The patent drug companies would suffer sales losses, perhaps substantial, as their often toxic extracts of plant and mineral chemicals are foregone for the relief provided by the inexpensive herb, cannabis. Admitting that cannabis is a healing herb leads to embarrassing questions about jailing anyone for using it. Acceptance of any benefit from cannabis leads to its benign cousin, hemp, posing a threat to big oil, big cotton, big lumber, big paper, big crop chemicals, and a dozen more multinational corporate interests. In January, the South Dakota Cannabis Coalition commissioned a survey to gauge both South Dakotans' level of knowledge of hemp and medical cannabis and their willingness to apply common sense and compassion to the law. The pollsters asked registered voters two questions about medical cannabis use. "If a seriously ill patient has a doctor's approval to use marijuana for medical purposes, do you think that patient should be arrested and sent to prison for using marijuana on his or her doctor's advice?" 481 of 505 respondents (96 percent) said "No." "Would you favor a change in South Dakota law so that seriously ill people - with a doctor's approval - can use medical marijuana legally without fearing the possibility of being arrested?" 410 of 505 (82 percent) said "Yes." But then, these unwashed voters probably haven't had the benefit of the advice of highly-paid lawyer lobbyists for the multinational corporations, nor their campaign contributions. Bob Newland is a writer and publisher. He is a spokesman for South Dakota Cannabis Coalition. Hermosa, S.D. Source: Rapid City Journal (SD) SoDakNORML OCBC Versus US Government CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #13 posted by Matt on June 18, 2001 at 11:07:08 PT:
|
| Dan wrote: >I registered my new name here on Cannabis News (Dan B, >Ph.D.), and I have run into problems with it ever since. Evidently the gadget that registers new usernames 'Dan B Ph.D.' ME [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #12 posted by Dan B on June 10, 2001 at 12:25:18 PT:
|
| I couldn't resist the pun on the famous John Stuart Mill essay. Liberty Belle is doing fine. She gets her second set of booster shots tomorrow. She's hyper as can be, and far smaller than Kaptin (only about 8 or 9 pounds so far, and she might get to be double that size), but in great health, and not yappy like some small dogs can be. Obnoxiously energetic, yes, but not yappy. She's a good girl. Thanks for asking. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 10, 2001 at 12:11:55 PT |
| That makes sense Dan, I just don't understand some things about computers or should I say I don't understand much about computers except I love them! LOL! How's Texas Belle? My Kaptin is fine and I found out yesterday he loves to chase the water hose. He acts so funny. He hasn't stopped growing yet and he is huge. He must weigh close to 120 pounds and is around 30 inches at the back. Thank goodness he is gentle. He could hurt me or anyone so easily. I didn't think he'd get this big but he sure did! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #10 posted by Dan B on June 10, 2001 at 06:51:18 PT:
|
| First of all, thank you for responding to my request for more info. I think, though, I have a solution. I actually like Dan B. Everyone here knows me as Dan B, and for the most part everyone already knows the part about the Ph.D. So, here is my solution: I'll continue to post as Dan B, but if I should happen to answer one of the prohibitionists that sometimes leave their droppings here, I'll sign my full name (Daniel D. Butterworth, Ph.D.) after my comments. That way, they 'll know my credentials when they read my post. I think this will work. I have to say that I wasn't comfortable adding "Ph.D." to my name here, but I feel comfortable using it when answering someone who does not know me and might benefit from knowing my background when responding to me (not to toot my own horn or anything). I think you're right, dddd . . . bad HooDoo! :0) Thanks, everyone, for your comments on this matter. Okay--here's my relevant comment: The Supreme Court was not only wrong, but extermely cowardly and unjust with its decision against medical marijuana cooperatives. Timothy McVeigh was right in his reasoning that the U.S. Government is tyrannical, but absolutely wrong in his approach to the problem. You're right, JJM, blowing up buildings is not the answer. We'll all be a lot more proud of winning this war when we can say we won it with words, not with bloodshed. Have a good one! Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #9 posted by JJM on June 10, 2001 at 04:34:56 PT:
|
| Jeff Snyder would not say it so I will... McVeigh is a VIOLENT CRIMINAL, blowing up buildings solves nothing. We can arrest the War on Drugs by beating them at their own game: Communication is the key... IF YOU WANT YOUR FREEDOM, SPEAK OUT! Write letters to editors, your Congressmen, circulate petitions... I need people* to help me make Public Service Announcements decrying the hypocrisy and fraud known as the WoD. DRUG WAR IS TREASON! narcosoft.com *Note: HELP WANTED narcosoft.com seeks writers, researchers and distributors for our legal psychoactive drugs (so far: caffeine, nicotine and alcohol) in a global ad campaign to expose the drug war as a profitable industry that consistently violates US RICO statutes, unfairly applies punishment, and encourages official corruption. If you think you can help, contact Jose Melendez at helpwanted@narcosoft.com for more info... Really want to make a change? Get off your bongs long enough to VOTE! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by dedbr on June 10, 2001 at 03:51:24 PT:
|
| Its always the same thing with these people-money.Thats why when we use money against thenthey b*tch so d*mn much. I know that the phrase"backed by a few millionaires"will come into play more and more when the anti's talk about our movement to legalize the herb.We finally have a few people willing to put there money where they're mouth is.Now we have a real chance of winning. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 09, 2001 at 21:47:53 PT |
| [Knowing all this, the justices lied, saying their hands were tied by Congress. Why? The patent drug companies would suffer sales losses, perhaps substantial, as their often toxic extracts of plant and mineral chemicals are foregone for the relief provided by the inexpensive herb, cannabis.] On a side note: mcveigh was trained by the US government, they created this monster. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by jeff snyder on June 09, 2001 at 18:58:57 PT:
|
| ...but my only problem with tim mcveigh is that he blew up the wrong building. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by lookinside on June 09, 2001 at 18:36:40 PT:
|
| you get it fixed...if you like it, fight for it! i've said it hundreds of times since the last election...the i'm thoroughly disgusted... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by dddd on June 09, 2001 at 13:57:33 PT |
| It's probably bad HooDoo Dan,,,,,maybe you should stay with good ol' Dan B?????????dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 09, 2001 at 13:46:48 PT |
| Hi Dan, I don't know. I'm not sure. Maybe if you emailed Matt Elrod he might know. When it comes to things like this it's way out of my league. That's what I suggest. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2001 at 13:05:02 PT:
|
| I registered my new name here on Cannabis News (Dan B, Ph.D.), and I have run into problems with it ever since. When I type in my password to post, I get a message saying that I had the wrong password (perhaps this is because I used the same password as for this nom de plume). When I go to re-register my name, it tells me that name is already registered. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks. Dan B, Ph.D. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by Dan B, Ph.D. on June 09, 2001 at 13:01:09 PT:
|
| With precise, concise, and cohesive arguments, Bob Newland strikes at the heart of hypocrisy represented by the Supreme Court decision regarding the medical use of cannabis. On every point, he is absolutely correct, and it's about time somebody had the cajones to write what he wrote. Thank you, Rapid City Journal, for recognizing and publishing the truth. Kudos all around! Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |