|
|
| Medical Marijuana Ban Overturned in D.C. |
|
Posted by FoM on April 01, 2002 at 20:50:17 PT By Ann Harrison, AlterNet Source: AlterNet 
A federal law that prohibited District of Columbia residents from proposing, running or voting on a ballot initiative to legalize medical cannabis, has been overturned as an unconstitutional restriction on political speech. In 1998, 69 percent of District voters approved a measure to legalize the medical use of marijuana. Congress responded with the so-called "Barr Amendment," named for its sponsor, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA). The Barr Amendment blocked the implementation of the initiative and prohibited the District from spending appropriated federal funds to "enact or carry out" any law that reduces criminal penalties for marijuana or any Schedule I controlled substance. Last December, the Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, and several individual plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against the federal government and the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE). They argued that the Barr Amendment violated D.C. residents' First Amendment right to utilize the District's ballot initiative process to engage in public debate on a subject of fundamental importance. Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan agreed, and ruled March 28 that the Barr Amendment effectively prohibited the plaintiffs from gathering signatures to place another cannabis initiative on the ballot in November. "There can be no doubt that the Barr Amendment restricts plaintiffs' First Amendment right to engage in political speech," wrote Judge Sullivan. Barr spoke out against the ruling and said the initiative was a backdoor effort to usurp federal law. "Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital," said Barr in a statement. "This ballot initiative was not about free speech, nor was the court correct in defining it as such. This initiative was about opening the door to drug legalization, and whether federal taxpayer dollars should be used to support a drug legalization agenda." Barr has written to Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking the Justice Department to appeal the court's decision. But Judge Sullivan permanently enjoined the BOEE from applying the Barr Amendment to block a medical cannabis initiative for the District proposed by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "Because we won the lawsuit, we get to run a medical marijuana initiative in Washington D.C. this year," says Robert Kampia, executive director of the MPP and a plaintiff in the case. Given that 69 percent of D.C. voters approved the 1998 measure that removed criminal penalties for medical marijuana patients, Kampia believes a similar measure would win handily if it were placed on the ballot in November. "We are conducting a ballot drive starting tomorrow and we want to spark a congressional debate on medical marijuana because we know that Congress is not going to allow a local medical marijuana law without a fight," said Kampia. Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge, a Maryland-based group that resists medical cannabis initiatives, wants that fight to continue. She is dismayed that the Barr Amendment was overturned and charges that the MPP is waging a "very professional misinformation campaign." "Bob was one of the few government officials who had the backbone to help kids in the District by keeping it from being even more saturated by marijuana and other drugs and letting people know that marijuana is not medicine," says Nalepka, who believes medical cannabis patients should be prosecuted under federal law. "They should be charged, they should enforce the law, it is there to protect the safety and health of the rest of us. I don't want people tooling down the street after they have smoked a joint for a backache." Voters in eight states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have already expressed their opinion on medical cannabis and approved laws that remove criminal penalties for seriously ill patients who use and grow marijuana with the approval of their physicians. The MPP recently commissioned a poll by the Lucas Organization that surveyed four of these states. The poll indicates that there is stronger bipartisan support for medical cannabis laws now than when they were passed. This support ranges from 74.3 percent of polled voters in Alaska to 78.6 percent in Nevada. The poll also found support for medical marijuana initiatives in six additional states that do not have such laws -- Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Those who strongly supported, or somewhat supported, laws that ban arrest and penalties for medical cannabis patients ranged from 63.3 percent in North Dakota up to 72.3 percent in Arizona. Medical marijuana legislation is already underway in two states. On March 25, the Maryland House of Delegates overwhelmingly approved H.B. 1222, the Darrell Putman Compassionate Use Act, which removes criminal penalties for the medical use of marijuana. A full Committee and Senate vote on the bill is expected the week of April 1. On March 15, the Vermont House of Representatives became the first Republican-controlled state legislative chamber in the country to initiate and pass medical marijuana legislation (H. 645) which allows patients with their doctors' approval to use, possess and grow cannabis for medical purposes. A medical cannabis bill proposed in the Connecticut House of Representatives died in the judiciary committee in March and is not expected to be revived this year. A campaign is still underway to gather signatures to put a medical cannabis bill on the ballot in Arizona and Kampia says he is confident that it will succeed. He says the MPP is also hoping to run medical marijuana initiatives in Montana and North Dakota this year and in the remaining polled states by 2004. "Our strategy is that we are hoping to run medical marijuana initiatives in all six of these states in the next two years," said Kampia. "That would double the number of states with medical marijuana laws from eight to sixteen." The Lucas poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 voters, also indicated bipartisan support for initiatives that would make medical marijuana distribution and sales legal under state law. No existing medical cannabis initiatives have yet tackled this issue. Support for such a ballot measure ranged from 51.4 percent in Nebraska to 67.9 percent in Nevada. A proposed initiative that would require state governments to grow and distribute medical marijuana to seriously ill patients was even more popular attracting the support of 55.9 percent of Nebraska voters and 73.4 percent of the voters in Nevada. Nalepka dismisses these figures and suggests that surveys of this sort can be manipulated to produce the desired results. She points to a statement from the National Institute of Heath that people with HIV and others whose immune systems are impaired should avoid marijuana use. "The most dangerous thing that is happening is that kids are being misled to believe that marijuana is somehow helpful," says Nalepka. "It has been known for a long time that it damages the immune system." Ethan Russo M.D., a neurologist from Missoula, Montana, has sparred with Nalepka over these assertions. He points out the Institute of Medicine recommended that cannabis be made available to people with HIV, cancer and other serious illnesses. Russo also notes that the Food and Drug Administration has recognized medical indications for cannabis by virtue of its approval as an Orphan Drug for treatment of AIDS wasting syndrome. The FDA approved Russo's Investigational New Drug application for cannabis in migraine treatment, but the process was derailed by the refusal of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to provide the drug for the trial. Russo says he is encouraged by the Lucas poll figures, which indicate that over 65 percent of voters in Montana support removing threat of arrest and penalties for seriously ill patients who grow and use medical marijuana with the approval of their physicians. "I would love to see it happen, it would make my life and that of my patients easier," says Russo, who says he advises his patients about cannabis but cannot recommend it under existing laws. "If you ask me if it helps, I say yes, for a wide variety of conditions. I know that there are a good number of patients out there who are interested in pursuing the matter." In Vermont, where medical cannabis legislation is coming up for a Committee and Senate floor vote at the end of April, the local law enforcement community has chosen not to pass judgment on whether medical cannabis should be available. "That is not my place at all," says Steve McQueen, the police chief of Winooski, Vermont, who represents the Vermont Chiefs of Police Association on legislative issues. "It is the medical community that needs to debate these issues and the legislature needs to be comfortable with that debate." McQueen helped the state's judiciary committee review the legislation and point out potential problems from an enforcement perspective. The bill permits patients to possess immature and mature cannabis plants with a maximum yield of three ounces. McQueen is still concerned about determining maturity and yield and potential liability issues for doctors. He is also concerned that the legislation conflicts with federal drug laws that can still be imposed on Vermonters. But overall, he's pleased with provisions of the law that require cannabis patients, their caregivers and their doctors to be certified with the Vermont Department of Public Safety and listed in the Vermont state police database. Patients possessing more than permitted amounts can be charged with felonies and doctors who issue recommendations without thorough examinations can loose their licenses. "I was quite impressed with how they solved this," said McQueen. "I am not ashamed of my role to make this process work. If the legislature decides to make medical cannabis available, it is my job as a police professional to show them how to get there legally and make it enforceable." Ann Harrison is a freelance writer in San Francisco. Newshawk: puff_tuff Related Articles & Web Sites: Marijuana Policy Project Cannabinoids in Pain Management Ethan Russo MD -- Chronic Cannabis Use Ruling May Put Marijuana Measure on Ballot Law Overturned Barring Marijuana Vote in D.C. Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #36 posted by freddybigbee on April 03, 2002 at 06:55:37 PT:
|
| Your situation reminds me of a story about Ross Perot I read recently. He was appointed by Shrub I to investigate POWs in Asia, but complained that every time he tried to pursue the subject all he kept hearing about was CIA drug running in the region. Soon he started hearing himself portrayed as some kind of a nut-case. "You're crazy" is the last refuge of a thug who is about to hit you over the head with his gun, but has exhausted all other means of attempting to silence you or justify his position. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #35 posted by PAUL PETERSON on April 02, 2002 at 17:44:55 PT |
| Wow, what a sight for sore eyes, a Federal District Court Judge willing to weather the ire of the Supreme Court Judges right down the street. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is indeed a brave man to speak about justice, and freedoms, and speech, especially "political speech", in this most political of towns, that is! The way I see it, that's the same thing I've got cooking here in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln and all, that's what. I am running for state representative as a Libertarian, after having been suspended from the practice of law merely because I came forward to the appropriate state agencies (DHS, ARDC) to try to gain valid authorization to use what I consider a "necessity", our controversial medication, that is, for side effect abatement from this "ritalin" thing, which I now know is an "excitotoxin" (9/1/01 & 11/15/01 Journal of Neuroscience articles-pot saves brain cells, first seen here a few months ago, I think). Because I tried to use this quality medical marijuana law we've had buried here in the "Reagan" sands of time, these people ganged up on me and committed FRAUD, PERJURY, MAIL FRAUD, and CONSPIRACY. Because I am much to testy of a (former) lawyer to accept this sort of KAKA, I told these people to their faces just what I can prove that they have done, and repeatedly so, even to the Illinois Supreme Court (five times, no less). I filed this Class Action Lawsuit (Cook County 01 CH 20879) and then they TOOK MY LICENSE AWAY, they did. Because I keep doing valid "motions" to try to expose their crimes (and I even tried to get the DOJ & FBI to investigate this fraud pattern), now they have the audacity to say it sounds like I am "DELUSIONAL" or have some "CONSPIRATIONAL" brain problem, but actually it is just such a wierd story to ever see, let alone to see myself in it, and observe the story playing out this way, and observe other peoples' reactions to it, and the way I am reacting to it (like by refusing to shrink away from the task, etc.), that I am just amazed that I can continue to play the cards as they fall. Yesterday I had the doposition of my "psychiatrist" (a good man, by the way), and they tried to get him to state that I was prima facia "psychotic" because I stated something to him about an experience I had, in Christ, (they call it a religious experience, they do), and this guy stated (rightly, I might add), that it is really hard to clarify whether something is a true "religious experience" or, on the other hand, is MERELY "delusional", what a kicker! So here we have the setup: The Illinois House is now working on making the "transmitting" of information about cannabis over the internet "a misdemeanor" where the "intent" is to help someone to break the law! TWO WEEKS AGO I STARTED A WEB SITE TO TRANSMIT INFORMATION ABOUT CANNABIS (MEDICAL MARIJUANA) and our valid state law about these things. They will try to bust me on this one, they will, and THANK YOU JUDGE EMMET G. SULLIVAN, for giving me the CASE LAW PRECEDENT (and a fresh one to boot) so that I can carry this torch right back into the ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT. In related fronts, of course, STAY TUNED SPORTS FANS, there is a really pivotal HAWAIIAN RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT COURT OPINION COMING OUT in, oh, a week or two, as to whether the state has a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in restricting religious freedoms (remember that I have recently-like yesterday-been impugned in my own sanity by the local LAWYER POLICE for professing to have had a RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (which may or may not have been related to ritalin-medicinal herbs?). I'm thinking once this religious precedent kicks in, what with the freedom of speech thingy mentioned above, we've kind of got the FIRST AMENDMENT NAILED DOWN HERE, EH? Then, since I'm running for state representative and all (PER SE POLITICAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR WHAT?) I am hoping the local press will be just a little bit more willing to hear me out and start writing something about these things. Also, today, I just mailed & delivered some flyers to the local enforcers, asking for a few dollars to have me come and give MEDICAL MARIJUANA SENSITIVITY SEMINARS, replete with references to both my 1) MM based web site, 2) political aspirations, 3) the local MM law that nobody wants to acknowledge exists, 4) my political plank of "working to expose fraud in state government" & 5) my willingness to debate anybody on this subject in "any church in town, your place or mine, eh?" Of course, I have none of this "medicine" anywhere near my hair follicles or urine, don't ya know. (Oops-there I did it, I used a "colloquialism rarely seen in formal writing"-which fully brands me as "delusional", you know, along with the "loose associations" that I hope will be seen as my trademark soon). I'll let you know how it goes-Here's the clincher: They say I have "bipolar disorder" and yet none of the "traditional" remedies for "bipolar" do any good, other than causing a marked depressive state and existentialist thought process (I will call it an ATHEISM THING). So the RIDDLE HERE IS: What medication is supposedly a good herbal medication for BIPOLAR DISORDER? (Answer: 1) grows on god's earth, 2) good source of EFA's in just the right combination, 3) has these good Omega thingies that Dr. Andrew Weil says are the best thing going for bipolar, or so they tell me). How am I doing with this explanation thing, eh? You can read more about it on my site (YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT SOON WILL BE BANNED IN ILLINOIS-maybe they're doing that 'specially for me, eh?-or would that sound like I've gone "conspiratorial" or something?)-Stay tuned for more updates and let me know which church I should hook up with- 1) the Church of the Holy Smoke, 2) the Church of Realized Fantasies, 3)the Church of the Universe, (the first two are in Hawaii, the latter in Winnepeg)-Let me know what other fine "sacramental" bodies there are out there, and lets talk, OK? (Ben Franklin had a few good things to say about not letting a "church doctrine" get too confining, I'm thinking that guy had a lot going for him after all-Thomas Jefferson actually reorganized and "shortened" the bible, they call that the "Jeffersonian Bible"-Maybe we could call this the Church of Ben and Tom or Frank & Jeff, eh what? PAUL PETERSON-LAND OF LINCOLN CHURCH OF THE ENTHEOLOGY VISUALIZED? (LLCEV). [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #34 posted by FoM on April 02, 2002 at 17:20:42 PT |
| I think you misunderstood what I meant. I did want to write a book but Cannabis News is doing what I would have wanted in a book so in that sense it is being written. Each day the articles and comments are recording the way it is not the way anti's try to write it. I hope this makes sense? I know I can be very confusing at times! I just don't have the talent to write. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #33 posted by Nuevo Mexican on April 02, 2002 at 17:05:19 PT |
| When I was done with my suggested book title: The Cannabis Solution, I went to read the new posts' and there yours was, stating a book had been written! You know what they say (about water signs). Not surprising, still amazing!
Peace! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #32 posted by mayan on April 02, 2002 at 14:53:32 PT |
| Governor King expands mmj law:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&u=/po/20020402/co_po/maine_expands_medical_marijuana_support [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #31 posted by FoM on April 02, 2002 at 13:16:42 PT |
| Recently I have been more aware of security. I think it is sad that we must. I'm sorry about your site being hacked. I hope it isn't the authorities. Backup is done frequently so we wouldn't lose data as far as I know if we were hacked here. History needs to be recorded accurately. So much of the 60s has been swept away and it was the time of change and hope for a new tomorrow and that's wrong. History should be History not what someone wants it to be. You be careful too. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #30 posted by herbdoc215 on April 02, 2002 at 13:07:57 PT:
|
| Seems to be up too dirty tricks again as many activist have been having severe computer trouble lately. I have had my website hacked twice, plus some of our computers have turned up with trojan horses that got behind firewalls? We have quite a few people looking into it but personally I suspect the gov't as it seems to be pretty concentrated to activist, California and Canada is were I have seen it but it may be more we haven't seen yet. This is very dirty pool and when I heard they were putting together a team to investigate internet I was afraid after all laws passed lately to enable this crap they would play dirty. I was so glad to read about your documenting truth here it choked me up ( and no it wasn't a bong hit either, lol :) and my mind rests much easier knowing they cannot erase the truth here like they have done so many times in the past. Now I wish I had used spell checker but I hate to think a machine is doing my writing or thinking for me as society is banal enough as it is. When this whole crazy mess is over it sure would be nice for all of us to get together and see each other in person as it would sure be a fun week to share. Peace, Steven Tuck [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #29 posted by FoM on April 02, 2002 at 11:32:27 PT |
| Thank you. It really amazes me how much we are learning day after day. We are recording History. A number of years ago before Cannabis News I thought I wanted to write a book but it was only a thought. Now I look at the web site and content and see a book being written. We can go back to the day that Peter McWilliams died and read about it and the emotional comments that were made. We can go back and read how we felt when the story of the Rainbow Farm horrors happened. We can go back and read about the raids on those in California that stood tall and proud! On and on so a book is being written every day and it will be accurate History. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #28 posted by MassCrusader on April 02, 2002 at 11:16:16 PT |
| How about "Barr to hit the Bars"
For he is too upset to talk about it [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #27 posted by MassCrusader on April 02, 2002 at 11:14:48 PT |
| Thank you Fom and the reast of Mapinc/Cnews for the continuing coverage of one of the worst policies in World History. It is hard to keep out racist policies when the policy was meant to be racist. A friend in Boston [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #26 posted by john wayne on April 02, 2002 at 11:14:29 PT |
| "Voting Ban Overturned in D.C" or "First Amendment Ban Overturned", or "Election Suppression Reversed" or Election Barr Removed, that last one imitating the way headlines always pun something about "going to pot" when pro-cannabis votes win. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #25 posted by MassCrusader on April 02, 2002 at 11:06:32 PT |
| I have been coming here for some time now and never felt the need to chime in with any comments I may have had. However, lately things up North in Canada have been moving towards the end of prohibition through the judicial process. I just came back from a trip up to Montreal and the attitude seems to be very lax towards the use and possesion of Marijuana. Also with the "coup de grace" coming up in Ontario with Terry Parker's case coming to an end. Now one could make a great argument stating that Prohibition ended on the day when Health Canada was supposed to comply with the court's ruling in July 2000. It seems most people agree agree, even the president of the OMA that they did not go far enough to comply with the court ruling. If more people knew about this, everyone could use this a defence in court and have it defacto mainstream in no time. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #24 posted by Hope on April 02, 2002 at 11:06:01 PT |
| The only reason she ever visited this site at all is that it shows up first on a search of her name. Self interest, not even a desire to "know the enemy" brought her here. I sincerely believe that Ms. Nalepka is a cruel and coarse person, unable to grow or learn or hear or see the truth. There are, as we all know, "none so blind as those who refuse to see". Her conscience has been "seared over, as with a hot iron". Her group actually fought to lift the ban on the use of Paraquat on cannabis fields. So much for caring about the well being of the children. Any who are offended to references to faith in God, may stop reading my comments at this point. There is no doubt that many are crying out to God this very day, in tears, because Joyce has done everything she can to keep them from having safe access to the herb, cannabis, to alleviate their illnesses. She has made herself the persecutor of many of the true "children" of God. Sooner or later, I think, God will grow tired of her "stiff neck" and "hardened heart". I pity her. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #23 posted by idbsne1 on April 02, 2002 at 11:04:27 PT |
| Joyce Nalepka is a TERRORIST...... You heard it here folks..... idbsne1 [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #22 posted by Jose Melendez on April 02, 2002 at 10:34:46 PT:
|
| Joyce is good for marijuana reform in the same way as a certain Governor who stood in the way of nine black shoolchildren. Few remember his name, but everyone remembers the incident his obviously prejudicial stance precipitated... From: ...President Dwight D. Eisenhower had been hesitant to interfere in desegregation, but the issue was forced by Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus in September 1957. Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School to prevent nine black students from attending school. Eisenhower eventually responded by sending in 1,100 paratroopers to assist the black children. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #21 posted by goneposthole on April 02, 2002 at 10:31:56 PT |
| using medical marijuana. Makes me wonder why? They are not going to use pharmaceuticals that cause side effects like sexual dysfunction and constipation, are they? They want something that works. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by E_Johnson on April 02, 2002 at 09:59:19 PT |
| Because of the problems of someone else in my household, I was having a conversation with a nurse from the local mental health program today and I happened to mention in the course of the conversation that I was using marijuana to treat a problem of my own and she told me that a lot of people in my community are using it that way and it is becoming regarded as the only medicine that works for that problem. I live in an upper middle class heavily Republican community where people tend to want discretion, and have big houses with big gates and long driveway to maintain it. So this was big news that I was not going to get anywhere else. Now I know that there are a bunch of rich Republicans in my very own neighborhood using marijuana behind those big gates, with their shrink's recommendation. And the local mental health professionals know all about it and condone it. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #19 posted by Robbie on April 02, 2002 at 09:58:02 PT |
| No worries. Ann Coulter is also a lawyer. Seems they let ANYBODY in the club. Doesn't make them any smarter, or human. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by FoM on April 02, 2002 at 09:53:37 PT |
| White House Office of National Drug Control Policy And Terra Lycos Launch 'Anti-Drug' Web Page for Parents -- Internet Network Joins Anti-Drug Media Campaign To Develop Online Drug Prevention Resource
http://library.northernlight.com/FB20020402990000242.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by idbsne1 on April 02, 2002 at 09:28:24 PT |
| No matter what we say, she still goes on with her lying. Are you NOT getting it, Joyce? Have you even seen all the changes going on in other countries? Are THEY lying? Do THEY not care for their children? You are an idiot Joyce. To teach children through lies and disinformation..."for their protection"....we need to protect them from YOU. The responsible, SANE way of doing what you're doing is to teach kids to stay away from ALL drugs. AND to teach them the TRUTH about their use AND abuse. Including alcohol and tobacco. The fact you have been "pestered" by all us folks here on cnews with an abundance of evidence and truth regarding the safety and medical efficacy of cannabis, yet you still maintain your position with a fervor, spitting out lies like there is no evidence for cannabis' efficacy...just goes to show that you are ignorant, predudiced, and evil. Realize this. Cannabis will be free. VERY soon. Because the Truth eventually prevails. And YOU are perpetuating the suffering of innocent people. People, she's never going to change her mind. Ever. Has she in 30 years? Just like a drug addict will never stop, until THEY decide to.... Yoohoo Joyce...you're in the minority....even your OWN state legislature disagrees with you, you FREAK..... I can't WAIT to see your whole life's work go down the drain... Bulls#$t in Life....Hell in the Afterlife....Be proud.... "What a tangled web the prohibitionists weave...." idbsne1 [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by releafer on April 02, 2002 at 08:44:38 PT |
| OH!!!! ITS YOU BOB!!! We don't need your religious bias opinions BOB...Stop screwing with my MEDICINE..............BOB [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by dddd on April 02, 2002 at 08:16:49 PT |
| ..law school grad?....sheepskin on the wall?....member of the bar???...gimme a break!??Joyce cant even present a defense for her own foolish statements!...If she has a law degree,then I'll eat a generous helping of feline excrement,and personally deliver a package to her that contains half of my remaining IQ points,(48,or maybe 49),,,,,. ... ..ya never know though???maybe she got hers' at the same place Dan Quayle got his?,,then I'll have to eat catshit....maybe I can give her the IQ points that I never use much anymore,,,,uh-oh,,I just realized that I forgot to label them,,,,well,,gotta go now..I think Bob Marley is at the door...dddd [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on April 02, 2002 at 07:31:36 PT:
|
| http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Joyce+Nalepka The only reference that I have found on the Web...was the CNews Comment one where she claimed the "Esq." in her communications with LookInside. If she is a barrister, she must have, as Don Corleone's lawyer in THE GODFATHER put it, a very special practice. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by observer on April 02, 2002 at 07:14:33 PT |
| note Nalepka's "americares" aol email address: amercares@aol.com or nalepka@aol.com Here's an excerpt from (prohibitionist propagandist) Peggy Mann's 1984 alarmist pro-jail manual, "Marijuana Alert!" concerning Joyce Nalepka: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7357.shtml#5 [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by kanabys on April 02, 2002 at 07:05:44 PT |
| "They should be charged, they should enforce the law, it is there to protect the safety and health of the rest of us. I don't want people tooling down the street after they have smoked a joint for a backache, I'd rather see them all strung out on 'legal'synthetic opiates and have no idea what they are doing. Now that is really for the childruuuun." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by BGreen on April 02, 2002 at 07:02:09 PT |
| She is the epitome of evil. She takes credit for keeping cannabis from being decriminalized back in the late 70's. That means she gets credit for all of the pain and suffering my friends and I have endured throughout my entire adult life. I am a gentle, caring, and loving person, but Joyce is satan in the flesh. She has waged war upon me, and as such, it's her life or my life. You are not only evil, Joyce, but you are also a blithering idiot, and you WILL be defeated. God is truth, and He's already won the battle, so your evil lies WILL be exposed. Fall on your knees and repent for your sins before God gets the ultimate vengeance. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by goneposthole on April 02, 2002 at 06:50:47 PT |
| that is happening is that Joyce is on the loose. Antagonistic, maybe. Bigoted, maybe. She can't be silenced, she has a right to speak her mind. She's against marijuana and people using it for whatever reason. Of course, she maybe is wrong, too. Denying anything helpful to a dying person who desires to use marijuana as medication should question her conscience. Anything attempted to interfere with the comfort of the sick and dying is to be called into question. What's the motivation? It is maybe vain. To think the drug war can be won is vain.
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #9 posted by el_toonces on April 02, 2002 at 06:45:28 PT:
|
| ...if Joyce is indeed licensed to practice law -- a proposition I intend to verify today -- then that means ALL of her conduct in both her professional and personal life must conform to the ethical code of the state bar that issued Joyce her license. Most are based on the Model Code, but see http://www.abanet.org/cpr/links.html for specific states. One the rules mandates lawyers tell the truth (odd, I know) to their clients and to the general public. My point is simply that Joyce is so "helpful" by being interested in everyone else's business (esp. that of the sick) and making sure they comply with "the rules", but does poor Joycie ever enjoy reciprocal benefits from us? Perhaps we ought to "take an interest" to make sure Joyce is following all the rules? Guess I am just mad at hypocrisy today:) El PS -- Will report on what I learn about Joyce's licensure status and also check to see if she is not licensed as an attorney, why does she go around representing herself as such? In this state, they call that unauthorized practice of law and they prosecute for it (if you're not a member of the bar). [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on April 02, 2002 at 06:04:25 PT:
|
| I had to do some looking, but found the original source. It comes from LookInside's correspondence with Joyce: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/12/thread12018.shtml Comment #47 "From: [Add to Address Book] To: Subject: Re: Medical Cannabis and Stupidity. I'm not surprised that you didn't "get the point." Now, since you can't understand the picture, remove my name from your e-mail list. J. Nalepka, Esq." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Toker00 on April 02, 2002 at 05:45:30 PT |
| "Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital," He admits Congress has constitutional rights, but deprives the Citizens of theirs. He thinks Congress can be responsible, but not Citizens. Hmmm... "...I don't want people tooling down the street after they have smoked a joint for a backache." So nobody else gets a say in this, Joyce? These guys are getting more desperate every day. Looks like they can't stand it when our side makes sense to the courts. They are LOSING. Peace. Realize, then Legalize. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by el_toonces on April 02, 2002 at 05:38:24 PT:
|
| Kapt. -- I never knew Joyce put the suffix "Esquire" after her name. That usually means the person is an attorney, and I would be ashamed of my profession if I disocvered someone as close minded and stupid as Joyce was even a remote colleague (oh, wait, sorry, I forgot she has that disease, "amaurosis voluntarans" that Ethan diagnosed, so I can't blame her, but I can say she is unfit to be licensed to practice with a disorder like that). Where did you see Joyce use this suffix? Thanks, El [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on April 02, 2002 at 04:58:00 PT:
|
| Nalepka's much vaunted concern for sick people, you can cease your deliberations. She doesn't have any. "...Nalepka, who believes medical cannabis patients should be prosecuted under federal law. "They should be charged, they should enforce the law, it is there to protect the safety and health of the rest of us. I don't want people tooling down the street after they have smoked a joint for a backache." Let's see: she would want the Feds to go after the terminally-ill 79 year old lady I cared for. Who was undergoing chemo after massively invasive surgery to remove a mesotheliomic tumor. She would place that poor woman, tears pouring down her face from the godawful pain in her joints caused by Taxol, in the Gray Bar Hotel for as long as she lived - which wouldn't be long. She would deny this poor woman the freedom of not having to keep a bowl with her to put what she couldn't keep down and get to the bathtoom fast enough to get rid of. Joyce would stand outside the jail cell and gloat. And remind her that her incarceration is 'all for the chldren'. With her statement, Joyce has removed herself from the community of Humanity. She may have "Esquire" after her name...but that's no substitution for a conscience. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo MD on April 02, 2002 at 04:51:08 PT:
|
| Ann is a very professional writer. She interviewed me carefully, listened, and reported accurately. This allows the reader to form their own opinion without the writer imposing hers. Do you know what hers is? This is the difference between reporting and editorializing. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by bruce42 on April 01, 2002 at 21:54:11 PT |
| maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Joyce... but darn it, she makes it almost too easy. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by bruce42 on April 01, 2002 at 21:43:08 PT |
| "They should be charged, they should enforce the law, it is there to protect the safety and health of the rest of us. I don't want people tooling down the street after they have smoked a joint for a backache." I'd rather have the guy who smoked a joint than the guy who had a cup of java or a dose of allergy meds. The thing is Joyce, it isn't right to go around punishing people for things they might do. It's called innocent until proven guilty. I condem irresposible drug usage, but I also condem irresponsible laws... laws that take away Constitutional rights... laws whose only excuse for existence is to punish people for crime they may or may NOT commit... laws that deny people from seeking happiness and health. You seem content to destroy the lives of all the suffering because someone does something irresponsible. How about we lock up all the peole who drink for a decade because they MIGHT get behind the wheel while intoxicated? I know what your going to say... well marijuana is illegal... well so was alcohol for a while... until we realized it was a really stupid idea. "She is dismayed that the Barr Amendment was overturned and charges that the MPP is waging a "very professional misinformation campaign." "Bob was one of the few government officials who had the backbone to help kids in the District by keeping it from being even more saturated by marijuana and other drugs and letting people know that marijuana is not medicine," says Nalepka, who believes medical cannabis patients should be prosecuted under federal law." A very professional misinformation campaign? And what, precisely, are YOU doing Joyce? Is lying through your teeth in order to push your cause not misinformation? And how does preventing the public from engaging in political debate lower drug use? Are you afraid that kids might get exposed to factual information or are you simply interested in maintaining control over the information kids receive... factual, or as you seem to assert through your dialogue, not. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |