Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  Law Overturned Barring Marijuana Vote in D.C.
Posted by FoM on March 28, 2002 at 22:18:58 PT
By Arthur Santana, Washington Post Staff Writer 
Source: Washington Post 

medical A federal judge in Washington yesterday overturned a law prohibiting D.C. residents from circulating or voting on a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, clearing the way for the measure to be put on the ballot, possibly as early as November.

Proponents of the medical use of marijuana went to court in December seeking an injunction barring enforcement of the federal law, which effectively blocked D.C. residents from putting the issue before voters. The ban was enacted by Congress in 1998 after an identical legalization initiative was placed on the ballot and set off a home rule confrontation with federal lawmakers.

If 16,000 valid signatures are collected and certified by July 5, the medical marijuana initiative could be on the November ballot -- although the timeline is tight. If D.C. voters support it as they have in the past, the nation's capital would become the ninth U.S. jurisdiction to abolish criminal sanctions for those who use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The measure would legalize the cultivation, possession, use and distribution of marijuana for seriously ill patients whose physicians recommend its use.

The prohibition against letting D.C. voters consider legalizing marijuana was known as the Barr Amendment. It was named after its sponsor, Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who attached an annual rider to the District's appropriation bill that prevented public funds from being used to put the issue on any city ballot.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called the ban unconstitutional, saying it attempted to permanently prohibit legalization advocates, organized as the Marijuana Policy Project, from circulating a petition to get the measure on the ballot.

"There can be no doubt that the Barr Amendment restricts plaintiff's First Amendment right to engage in political speech," Sullivan wrote.

Initiative 59, the 1998 ballot measure, was approved by 69 percent of the D.C. electorate, although proponents had to go to court before election officials were allowed to count the vote nearly a year later. The measure passed in every precinct of the city's eight wards.

Barr issued a statment yesterday vowing to continue his fight against legalizing the drug in the District.

"Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics," he said. "This initiative was about opening the door to drug legalization, and whether federal taxpayer dollars should be used to support a drug legalization agenda."

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice said government lawyers have not decided whether they will appeal Sullivan's decision.

Robert Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project and a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling "means that we will be placing a question on the ballot this November to remove criminal penalties for seriously ill people who use and grow their own medical marijuana in our nation's capital." He said advocacy groups hope to begin the signature-gathering process among registered voters by the end of April.

But Wayne Turner, who led the effort to get Initiative 59 on the ballot, said the measure might not make the November ballot, because the D.C. Board of Elections must hold a series of hearings on any proposed initiative and settle on its exact language. He said the board, which meets once a month, might not get the petition forms ready until July.

With a July 5 deadline, "I don't see it possible" to make the November ballot, Turner said.

Alexei M. Silverman, an attorney for the Marijuana Policy Project, agreed it would be a challenge. "But based on the results of the 1998 vote, we have reason to be very optimistic that odds are that it will get on the ballot," Silverman said.

Proponents of medicinal marijuana cite the drug's usefulness in alleviating pain associated with AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer and other diseases.

But the White House's national drug policy office and several medical associations say the evidence of those benefits is not conclusive enough to merit a change in the law. Many members of Congress have said such use sends a conflicting signal about the nation's war on drugs.

The elections board ruled in December that Barr's amendment prohibited the panel from doing preliminary work toward putting another marijuana initiative on this year's ballot. That decision prompted the lawsuit, which named the U.S. and D.C. governments as defendants.

"Just because Congress has the authority to determine and overturn the laws of the District doesn't mean that Congress can pass unconstitutional laws," Kampia said, praising the judge's ruling.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Arthur Santana, Washington Post Staff Writer
Published: Friday, March 29, 2002; Page B01
Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letterstoed@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com

Related Articles & Web Site:

Marijuana Policy Project
http://www.mpp.org/

Court Rules Marijuana Initiative Should Proceed
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12383.shtml

Lawsuit Reignites Medicinal Marijuana Debate
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11600.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #5 posted by observer on March 29, 2002 at 08:10:17 PT
Bob Barr, Habitual Liar
''dangerous and addictive narcotics''

Notice how this two-bit ex-prosecutor can't help but lie. Prohibitionists lie as effortlessly and easily as you and I breathe air. The issue is over cannabis (one drug), not "drugS" (plural), as Bob Barr falsely states.

Of course, the intent of Bob Barr's little lie was to save the children, so, Bob's little lies are "OK". If people are talking about not jailing pot smokers, call that "legalizing" all "drugS" (plural), instead. Make it seem worse: stir up passions the most you can. Mention children often. Act as though pot smokers are never jailed. Yeah, that's the ticket, Bob. After all, the end goal of 'saving America's children from drugS,' certainly justifies whatever lying and cheating means are uses to accomplish this noble end. Right Bob?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by freddybigbee on March 29, 2002 at 07:46:18 PT:

Interesting Timing
"With a July 5 deadline, "I don't see it possible" to make the November ballot, Turner said."

If I were paranoid and didn't think that our friends in the Congress had our best interest at heart, I might suspect that they have another trick up their sleeve between now and November 2003. What will it be this time, a law that says all voter initiatives must be pre-approved by Congress in D.C.? A law eliminating the initiative process? But since I trust them completely, I'll just assume the process will proceed fairly now.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by goneposthole on March 29, 2002 at 06:41:27 PT
Congress
DC residents have a vote to legalize cannabis for medicine. Congress does no allow votes to be counted. How many of you would like to see marijuana as medicine? Doesn't matter, you don't count.

We only count the votes that elect us into office, after that, screw you. If there aren't enough votes to elect the ones who should win, well then, we'll subract a few.

Your vote counts as long as it counts for us, not you.

Congress should pass a law eliminating all and any elections. Might as well, who wants to fiddle with such foolishness, 'electing' 'rulers' who obviously know better than anyone else.

We should thank them for having such wise ways, and quit complaining. Not 'we the people' but 'be the sheeple'. "Don't worry, be stupid"

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on March 29, 2002 at 05:19:57 PT:

Horses and water...
""Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics," he said. "This initiative was about opening the door to drug legalization, and whether federal taxpayer dollars should be used to support a drug legalization agenda." (Emphasis mine -k.)

dangerous: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=dangerous dan·ger·ous Pronunciation Key (dnjr-s) adj. 1.) Involving or filled with danger; perilous. 2.) Being able or likely to do harm.

addictive: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=addictive tr.v. ad·dict·ed, ad·dict·ing, ad·dicts 1.) To cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on a habit-forming substance: The thief was addicted to cocaine. 2.) To occupy (oneself) with or involve (oneself) in something habitually or compulsively: The child was addicted to video games.

narcotic: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=narcotic nar·cot·ic Pronunciation Key (när-ktk) n. 1.) An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain. 2.) A soothing, numbing agent or thing: “There was the blessed narcotic of bridge, at the Colony or at the home of friends” (Louis Auchincloss).

I'm quite sure Mr. Barr has at least one dictionary in his office; they are fairly cheap and portable. Perhaps someone should acquaint him with Mr. Webster? Cannabis is not dangerous (hasn't killed anybody in recorded human history), it is not addictive (addiction having very definite symptoms, none of which apply to cannabis) and it is definitely not a narcotic. It's in a whole other class by itself.

And finally, I find nowhere in that incredible document called the Constitution any references that clearly state the Congress can make laws that " 'protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics.' ". Is it in any of the Articles? How about the Bill of Rights? No? Anywhere? Uh-uh.

It always amazes me that some one who rails against government intrusions into the privacy of Americans (Barr hates ECHELON with a passion) can be so stunningly purblind when it comes the equally pervasive threat of government regulation of what you may or may not put in your bodies...at the threat of death or imprisonment if you insist that your body is your own, and no one elses'.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by dddd on March 29, 2002 at 01:03:21 PT
Normal or absurb?...cant tell anymore
.....""Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics," he said. "This initiative was about opening the door to drug legalization, and whether federal taxpayer dollars should be used to support a drug legalization agenda."
...yup,,that's what Bob Barr had to say...I must not have the updated copy of the Constitution that Barr is refering to....The shocker,,is that this is seen as some sort of victory...???think about it;;..what do we have here?,,a victory of Americans over their government???Americans fighting to verify,and legitimatize their votes?

...but,,no shock.....there are not many things that could shock those who are paying attention to what's going on .

..I dont know about you,,,but I have alot of friends that I will try and tell about outrageous things that are going on,and they really dont like hearing it,,they have enough stress in their lives just trying to work and live...They dont like to think about the gruesome facts concerning political matters...After all,,what can the average pissed off American do nowdays?..Ya wanna make waves,and try to protest ???...well,even if everyone hears you,,how can they be shocked anymore????Most of the country doesnt even know that Barr tried to stand against the voters in D.C.,,,and if they did,,what could they do or say?...All any politician has to remember to stay out of trouble with voters,,,is "Don't fuck with rich people." ......the police will take care of angry poor folks...What a suprize,,,it seems that the latest polls reveal that over 99 percent of terrorists are poor!,,so the new plan is to make a color-coded system to allow law enforcement to be informed of a suspects financial condition..Drivers licenses would be color coded to denote the financial terror risk level...Kenny Lay,,,Bobby Barr...Willy Bennett ,,Madonna,,,they would have Gold Cards,,,then there would be green,,,blue,,purple,,,and then there would be guys like me,with yellow cards!.............How many people have noticed the sillyness of the Homeland Security color-coded danger/alert level system?....Is there anyone out there who thinks that this is a normal,good idea?,,If so,please let me know....The more I think about it,,the more outstandingly absurd it becomes!!!Gimme a freakin break!!!...Its hilariousness is drowned out by the tragic stupidity of this "terror level"color rating..They probably hired consultants from Crayola!........Are we to assume,that Americans will get up in the morning,and check the terror alert level color before going to work??and then,if the terror level is at its highest,should we go to work?should we just be really careful about getting terrorized by terrorists???Can I become a terror level doctor by taking classes at DeVry or ITT Tech?...How long until the terrorometer is availiable to the public?...Will we have terror Richter scales,where terror incidents are measured on 'terrorographs'.?? ..nope,,,nowdays,the most significant "shocks",apparently are not political...Imagine if there were programs on national,non-cable TV,,and they were like financial news shows like,Business Week,,,or the financial report on the morning news,,but they were about the government...our government...now that would be "news"..Isn't there something wrong with the big picture when corporate/government interests own and operate the "news"?....I'm sorry,,but I say;"dont be lookin' for things to get better,,even if you win 65 million in the lottery,and you try to pay your way into improving the world,,,it's too late....be happy now,and try to do the best for good."..dddd

[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on March 28, 2002 at 22:18:58