Dean responded, "I don't believe in what Ashcroft's doing about medical -- putting people in prison who are, who have AIDS. Let me tell you what we have to do on medical marijuana. I stopped a medical marijuana bill in my legislature, and I'll tell you why. Because I'm a doctor, I think substances taken into your body have to be treated the same if they're meant to be medicines, no matter what they are. And I don't like people -- for the same reason I'm pro-choice -- I don't like people who are not in a position to make decisions about people's lives, like politicians particularly ... In the meantime, you know, I'm not in favor of legalizing marijuana -- I mean, maybe for medicinal use ... And so I'm not in favor of the kinds of raids that John Ashcroft is doing in those states where people have decided that medical marijuana is okay. I don't agree with the way it came about from a political process, but I'm not in favor of locking people up for medical marijuana like John Ashcroft is doing."

Just in case any of you were actually considering supporting this evil man, straight out of Orwell's 1984. Let's see, he's pro-choice for leaving women to decide what to do with their bodies, but for the same reasons (oh yeah - and because he's a DOCTOR) he's against letting the sick cut down a plant and use it!

He doesn't like politicians deciding what natural medicine people can use, so he supports the politicians' laws banning people from using the herbs. LIAR!

Another greedy fat man who wants to be king. No thanks. And the Dems think this guy will beat Bush? What a joke.

PRELIMINARY

Plaintiffs note that in Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Def. Br.”) Defendants do not challenge, contest, or even question the facts alleged by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, for the purposes of this motion, the facts introduced by Plaintiffs are all deemed to be true. See In Re Seagate Technology II Secur. Litig., 843 F. Supp 1341, 1371, n.38 (N.D. Cal. 1994).

Plaintiffs have described the tremendous suffering they have already experienced as a result of Defendants’ actions. Unless enjoined, Defendants’ actions would cause Plaintiffs to suffer even greater irreparable harm, including, in the case of Plaintiff Angel McClary Raich (“Angel”), an agonizing death. Although Defendants ignore the facts of the case, this Court, sitting as a chancellor in equity, is obliged to consider the tremendous human suffering that only an injunction protecting the Plaintiffs can alleviate.

Moreover, Plaintiffs Angel and Diane Monson (collectively “Plaintiff patients”) have taken a tangible risk by coming forward with this action against the Defendants. By their Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs seek merely to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this action -- i.e., that Plaintiffs are not arrested or prosecuted, that their medicine is not seized, and that their property is not forfeited.

As applied to the facts of this case, Defendants’ arguments are meritless.

First, it would exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause for the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) to authorize Defendants to take action against Plaintiffs for the conduct at issue in this matter, and United States v. Bramble, 103 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1996), does not hold otherwise.

Bramble did not involve medical cannabis and was decided prior to United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

Second, “principles of federalism” discussed in Conant v. Walters, 329 F.3d 629, No. 00- 17222, 2002 WL 31415494, slip op. at 18 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2002) (Schroeder, C.J.), provide an additional and independent basis supporting issuance of the injunction.

According to New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 114, 157 (1992), “the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States.” Such “a given instance” includes an intrusion into State sovereignty and interference Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction Case No. C 02 4872 MJJ with a State’s police power to regulate matters of public safety and public health.

Courts “must ‘show[] respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union.’” Conant, slip op. at 19, quoting United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop. (“OCBC”), 532 U.S. 483, 501 (2001) (Stevens, J., concurring).

Third, Plaintiffs’ conduct constitutes the exercise of constitutionally protected fundamental liberties. The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that cannabis is not an “unproven medical treatment[]” (Def. Br. at 1) for Plaintiff patients. Unlike the plaintiff in Carnohan v. United States, 616 F.2d 1120 (9th Cir. 1980), Plaintiffs herein do not seek to obtain any drug commercially, do not seek administrative approval for any substance by the federal government, and do not seek any action by the federal government whatsoever.

Indeed, through the injunction sought herein, Plaintiffs simply seek to preserve the status quo -- to be left alone, unarrested and unmolested by Defendants.

Fourth, the medical necessity doctrine protects the Plaintiffs in this case. Unlike the situation in OCBC, in which medical “necessity was raised in this case as a defense to distribution,” OCBC at 501 (emphasis added), Plaintiffs herein are not distributors. As explained in OCBC, “This case does not require us to rule on the scope of the District Court’s discretion to enjoin, or to refuse to enjoin, the possession of marijuana or other potential violations of the Controlled Substances Act by a seriously ill patient for whom the drug may be a necessity.” OCBC at 502- 3 (Stevens, J., concurring) (emphasis added).

Finally, not once in Defendants’ brief do they mention the leading Ninth Circuit case on medical cannabis: Conant v. Walters, supra (affirming injunction against Ashcroft, Hutchinson and others; vindicating rights under California’s Compassionate Use Act). That relevant and instructive authority is entirely and inexplicably absent from Defendants’ memorandum of law.

I. THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT DOES NOT GIVE CONGRESS PLENARY POLICE POWER OVER ALL COMMERCE. At the onset, it is clear that almost all the congressional findings in the Controlled Substances Act do not apply to the facts in this case but rather address the interstate trafficking in controlled substances or local manufacturing that is later transported in interstate commerce.

21 U.S.C. § 801(3), (4), and (6). Section 801(5), on the other hand, more broadly addresses intrastate manufacturing and distribution: Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate.

Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate. 21 U.S.C. § 801(5).

Yet, if in seeking to prohibit some form of interstate commerce, Congress attempts to prohibit the wholly intrastate commerce of particular goods on the unsupported speculation that such goods might leak out of a state and into interstate commerce, or because there is no way to distinguish between goods produced within a state and those imported from other states, that would effectively give Congress the plenary police power over all commerce.

That police power the Constitution explicitly denies to Congress, despite Defendants’ claims otherwise. United States v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 615 (2000) (Congress must exercise its power so as to preserve the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority). In this case, the cannabis grown and used by Plaintiffs for the limited purpose of medical use would never be traded between states.

2.01  Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

If a defendant's conduct is justified on the ground of necessity or choice of  evils under Penal Law § 35.05(2), it is not unlawful (see, People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 545-546, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202). 

When the defense is raised, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's conduct was not justified.

 The general notion that conduct which would otherwise be criminal may be justified   as necessary to avoid a greater harm, now codified in New York in Penal Law § 35.05(2), may be traced to cases in the early English common law (see, e.g., Reniger v. Fogossa, 1 Plowden 1, 18, 75 Eng.Rep. 1, 29 [1552];  Mouse's Case, 12 Co.Rep. 63, 77 Eng.Rep. 1341 [1608];  Note, Necessity:  The Right to Present a Recognized Defense, 21 New Eng.L.Rev. 779, 780-784 [1985-1986];  Bacon, The Elements of the Common Laws of England, at 25-32 [1636] ). 

In the older English cases, it was a defense to a criminal charge that a defendant committed an act to save a life or to put out a fire. And prisoners might escape from a burning jail without violating the law (see, Arnolds and Garland,

The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law:  The Right to Choose the Lesser Evil, 65 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 289, 291-292 [1974] ). In the United States, early Federal cases also recognized the defense of necessity (see, e.g., United States v. Ashton, 24 Fed.Cas. No. 14,470 [C.C.D.Mass.1834] [sailors charged with mutiny justified their refusal to obey captain's orders on ground that ship was not seaworthy];  Arnolds and Garland, op. cit., at 292). 

SINCE it can be shown that any use of cannabis is not necessarily abuse, that there are several currently accepted medical uses in treatment in the United States AND that in its use under medical supervision EXCEEDS accepted safety standards,

AND statutes are indeed construed as abrogating the common law of restraint of trade, which may be summarized to wit:

Royal monopolies were contrary to the common law of England - the Case of Monopolies.

Covenants not to compete incident to a sale of business or an employment contract were unenforceable if deemed unreasonable in duration or geographical scope - Mitchel v. Reynolds 1 P.Wms. 181, 24 Eng.Rep. 347 (K.B. 1711)

Horizontal price-fixing agreements were normally unenforceable as against public policy - Craft v. McConoughy, 79 Ill.346 (1875)

ALSO, SINCE the enforcement of Federal and State scheduling (especially of cannabis, and in fact all restricted substances), violates the Sherman Antitrust act, which states in part, that every person who

"shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, or combinee or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolizeany part of the trade or commerce among several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, one hundred thousand dollars, or by imprisonmentnot exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

AND ALSO, SINCE it is TRUE that under the Clayton Act, in Sec. 7 [15 U.S.C.A. $ 18] " . . . no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce, opr n any activity affecting commerce where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly."

AND IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT the Federal Trade Commission Act states in Sec. 5. [15 U.S.C.A. $ 45] (A)(1) "Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.", and was amended in 1975 to to apply to activities "in and affecting commerce,"

Forget it kids. The only way you can get Her Furher out of power is to have a civil war.

An incomprehensible string of bad legal decisions on pot plagues Canada the past two weeks, in a seeming backlash against public opinion, accepted practice and the direction of Canada's highest courts.

For example, while smoke-easy style pot cafes have won acceptance in British Columbia and New Brunswick, the Bloc Pot's newly opened Chez Marijane was invaded by cops on November 29, the business' opening day. They made two arrests but backed down in front of the press.

"We'll do something, don't you worry," blustered one officer, who wouldn't even reveal his name. "But we'll act when we're ready, not when these drug users want to get on television."

Perturbed police plan to continue harassing Chez Marijane's customers, but it hasn't slowed business one bit. Supporters throng the cafe.

A few days later, on Wednesday, December 3, a Calgary court ruled in the case of medpot user Grant Kreiger, who was arrested on charges of possession and trafficking in connection with work he was doing for a medpot club. During the trial, Judge Paul Chrumka took the highly unusual step of instructing the jury to find Kreiger guilty, after two jurors outright refused to convict. The jurors were cowed and followed the order of the judge.

Steve Kubby

On Monday, December 8, the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board refused to give refugee status to Steve Kubby, a US pot activist suffering from adrenal cancer, and the first American to get a Canadian medpot exemption. Kubby has convincingly proven that without regular, hourly ingestion of marijuana, he riskes increasingly life-threatening complications from a rare form of adrenal cancer. The board ruled to send him back to California, where he faces 120 days in jail and would be denied his medicine for the entire stay. Should Kubby return to California, he would surely die, just as publisher Peter McWilliams, who lived with AIDS, died without marijuana in US prison only a few years ago.

Also on Monday, Canada's Federal Government released new medpot guidelines. The guidelines were ordered changed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The new rules, however, flouted the Ontario Court of Appeal's order, only partially enacting the changes ordered by the court. Pot patients can now pay their suppliers cash in return for medicine, and will only need the signature of one specialist to get a medpot exemption, but Health Canada preserved a part of the regulations that allows a grower to only grow for one patient, and only three patients to grow together. In its ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal had ordered the government to remove such restrictions.

The predictable result of such moves is more legal wrangling.

Since the Canadian government has failed to fully implement the order of the court, which would have fixed constitutional problems with Canada's pot possession laws, Canadian activists - like Tim Meehan of Ontario Consumers for Safe Access to Recreational Cannabis - are hailing the coming season as the "Winter of Legalization." For if Canada's pot possession laws are unconstitutional, prosecutions are bound to fail. Meanwhile, renowned pot-law expert Alan Young has announced that he will mount a law suit against the Federal Government for contempt of court.

Likewise, Grant Kreiger will appeal his case, while activists at Chez Marijane will continue to push the envelope until they gain acceptance for their enterprise. Busts at such cafes are usual, even expected at the beginning, but sooner or later, police tire of arresting innocent potheads.

well, actually . . .

from: http://www.mpp.org/statelaw/app_l.html

The state argues that section 893.03 permits no medical uses of marijuana whatsoever.  In fact, all that subsection (1) states is that marijuana is not generally available for medical use. Subsection (1)(d), however, clearly indicates that Schedule I substances may be subject to limited medical uses.  It is well established that a statute should not be construed as abrogating the common law unless it speaks unequivocally, and should not be interpreted to displace common law more than is necessary.  Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 354 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla.1977) (quoting 30 Fla.Jur. Statutes ¤ 130 (rev. ed. 1974); State v. Egan, 287 So.2d 1, 6-7 (Fla.1973); Sullivan v. Leatherman, 48 So.2d 836, 838 (Fla.1950) (en banc).  We conclude that section 893.03 does not preclude the defense of medical necessity under the particular facts of this case.

[2, 3] Moreover, we conclude that the Jenks met their burden of establishing this defense at trial.  The elements of the defense have previously been addressed by trial courts in United States v. Randall, 104 Daily Wash.L.Rep. 2249 (Super.Ct.D.C. Nov. 24, 1976), and in Florida in State v. Mussika, 14 F.L.W. 1 (Fla. 17th Cir.Ct. Dec. 28, 1988), which both involved the medically necessary use of marijuana by people with glaucoma.  Those elements are as follows: 1. That the defendant did not intentionally bring about the circumstance which precipitated the unlawful act; 2. That the defendant could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive alternative available to the defendant; and 3. That the evil sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful act perpetrated to avoid it.

As applied to the case at bar, the Jenks obviously did not intend to contract AIDS. Furthermore, the Jenks' medical expert and physician testified that no drug or treatment is available that would effectively eliminate or diminish the Jenks' nausea.* Finally, the Jenks established that if their nausea was not controlled, their lives were

582 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 680

in danger.*  The state put on no evidence that contradicted the Jenks, and the trial court had no authority to reject the witnesses' testimony.  Based upon these facts, we conclude the trial court erred in reject ing the Jenks' defense and in convicting them as charged.

Use the Elections to WIN Drug Policy Reform!

Hello and thank you for reading this. Also be sure to thank the individual who sent this to you since that individual trusts your judgment regarding what is best for our nations future. Actually, that individual may have placed the future of our country in your hands. Working together, we have a chance to bring about a positive change in this country with the upcoming election cycle. This may seem long-winded but please read this entire document before you discount the possibilities. But first, let us set the stage for some corrective action. As you already know, the current drug policies in this country are, or should be, a real concern to a significant percentage of the voting population. These policies have a major flaw. There is an entire section that has evolved from a lie. The lie was sold to the public just after prohibition in 1937. "What is this lie?" you might ask. The lie is that marijuana is a dangerous drug. This lie has been droned into the media with unrelenting regularity since 1970 when then President Nixon declared a "War on Drugs". This war has continued and escalated every year since and there are now millions of victims of this decades long war, both dead and alive. The vast majority of these victims are not criminals and in every other respect are otherwise law abiding citizens. "What was their crime?" you ask; Simple possession of a small amount of marijuana. Before I get into the solution, I'd like to take a minute to explain why change is needed for those not already convinced. With the current policies, someone convicted for simple possession faces fines or jail and their families suffer from all the negative effects forced into play. And in many cases it is the loss of the major income earner. Further, the family is often completely broken. Not by the event itself, but by the fact that the state often places any minor children involved in foster care because they contend the parent/s were not fit or were not there at all. This only serves to amplify the problem generated by the current policy and extend the cost of this state generated problem to everyone else in the community. However, if simple possession were decriminalized, none of these previous problems would exist. Additionally, by changing the current policy to something similar to that which many other nations are now pursuing, the product would be controlled through standard market channels and would therefore be removed from the black market. The black market is where the price for marijuana is currently set and this market forces prices many times higher than they would otherwise be, promoting violence, gang activities, smuggling of other illicit drugs, and many other factors that need not be explored here. The overall impact to the community is entirely negative when the product is allowed to remain in this market. The current drug policy enables and promotes this black market environment and in effect acts with the same results as government price supports similar to those provided to milk, grains, tobacco or other subsidized produces. But it will remain there, producing all its negative effects and many more if change is not pursued. Everyone concerned with changing this policy will have a rare opportunity to try to effect this change with the upcoming presidential elections. The election itself is not the final decision for this change however, since the real battle, if this plan were implemented would take place well before then. What is this battle? Simply put, it is a mechanism by which everyone concerned with the flawed, or as some have declared, failed war on drugs can apply pressure to those running for the Democratic Party nomination. Please let me explain the details and mechanics of this plan. Before the states have their primaries, this document should be widely circulated to as many people as possible in these target states. This will allow everyone to act upon the following plan assuming they believe the current drug policies should be changed. Let me begin by saying that this plan involves drawing attention to marijuana decriminalization at the federal level. It is not an attempt to get any particular candidate elected. This plan will succeed through pressure from the electorate and the attempt alone, even if unsuccessful, will be enough to get the attention of everyone involved. Before we go through the steps in the plan, let me say that many states will allow a voter who lists himself or herself as Republican to vote for any of the democrats in the primary. This is a very important point as you will soon see. If your state is one of these, please just exercise the plan as listed. If you live in a state that requires you to declare your party affiliation and you are barred form voting for the other party in the primarys, assuming you are a Republican, you should formally change your party affiliation to Democrat and you can still vote for Bush in the general election later next year. As I said before, this plan is to get the drug policy changed, not to elect a particular party or person so everyone still reading this, regardless of political slant, can participate in real reform. This plan makes several assumptions. First, the fact that Howard Dean is well in the lead shows there are many who think he will be elected over George Bush. No matter what you think, let us for the moment believe this to be the reality. If you plan to vote for Bush, and want the drug policy changed, you should vote for the democratic candidate in the primary who has stated publicly his intent to decriminalize marijuana. That candidate is Dennis Kucinich. No matter which democratic candidate wins, you will still be able to vote for Bush in the general election if you still choose to do so. Now lets say you are a democrat and want to vote for your particular candidate. First you may be thinking Dean is the sure bet. If you are in that category, you can still vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary and Dean in the general election. At this point Dean is far enough ahead of the pack that your vote for someone else will not affect the outcome one way or another. If you are like some other democrats who intend to vote for one of the trailing candidates, you now have a choice to make. You have to consider whether your candidate has a chance and if you really are sure that the points are so close that your vote will really count, then vote your conscience and for your choice. If you know in your heart that the candidate you would choose probably will not win, you must now consider the bigger picture. That is the mission of this effort. You can vote for Dennis Kucinich and send a message. You may say to yourself, "When it comes right down to it, Kucinich is way behind in the polls too, so why should I vote for him and not my choice". Well, the simple fact is that with Kucinich trailing, he is a perfect target for this project. Why is this true? It goes to the idea of percentage change, not true percentages. Let me explain further. If Kucinich has 2 percent of the democratic poll, and we all follow this plan, not only will he gather a large jump from many other democrats, but he will also gain a huge jump from the republicans as well. This will cause a wild spike in the points Kucinich gains from this effort. The other leading democratic candidate, still assuming Dean is that candidate, and this is likely, will poll those who voted for Kucinich and find the source of his unexpected strength. This now puts the topic of drug policy reform front and center in the middle of a presidential election year. With this plan, I guarantee you progress in the decriminalization of marijuana, period. Dean will have to appeal to those who voted early for Kucinich, for he will discover that crossover Republicans were also involved. This will quickly be known in the Bush camp and the flashpoint for the topic will have been reached. In doing this, the media is forced to discuss the topic of decriminalization openly and this completely removes the artificially generated social barriers that stand in the way of this discussion much of the time. Granted this is an ideal scenario but if this plan is executed, it will work to take years off the expected decriminalization of marijuana at its present pace. If you agree with this policy change plan, please pass this document on to as many people as possible as soon as possible. It will work if we all follow it and in the general elections, nearly everyone will be able to vote their choice anyway. This plan is a workable compromise and is necessary if we are to gain strength through numbers. This plan will work through that strength. Thank you for supporting marijuana decriminalization. You friends and neighbors will thank you afterward. You are the key to this plan. As Howard says, you have the power to take back your freedom. You have the power to make a better country for all of us. In closing, the original working copy of the Constitution was written on hemp paper. The original stars and bars were sewn hemp cloth. Our country was once free from the tyranny of someone who calls himself a Czar, for only a Czar would disregard the vote of the electorate. The last Czar was supposed to have been killed in old Russia. Take back your country for yourself and your countrymen.

How much do you want to bet the DEAth will become a part of the so-called "experts" that will be conducting this study?

Howard Dean deserves to be supported by Al Gore because they are one and the same.

Howard Dean is not going to do a DAMN THING for us!

The CNN video at http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html;jsessionid=0C722FDEDB10811296E95EDDFF903FC3? says that the representatives did not want to anger conservative voters and wanted the issue delayed for the next term. It says the cannabis issue is still a hot topic.

Yes, this is real journalism. I am almost shocked that this would come out of Jeb's Florida.

U.S. House of Reps. Approves Bill to Censor American Citizens from Voicing Opposition to U.S. War on Drugs

WASHINGTON - December 9 - A little-known provision buried within the omnibus federal spending bill that the U.S. House of Representatives approved yesterday would take away federal grants from local and state transportation authorities that allow citizens to run advertising on buses, trains, or subways in support of reforming our nation’s drug laws. If enacted, the provision could effectively silence community groups around the country that are using advertising to educate Americans about medical marijuana and other drug policy reforms. Meanwhile, this same bill gives the White House $145 million in taxpayer money to run anti-marijuana ads next year.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1209-03.htm

Go-Along Media Ignoring Kucinich

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=369857&group=webcast

We should get this man Irv Rosenfeld in touch with Dennis Kucinich, he's the perfect medicinal cannabis, government sponsored, media ready guy. And he is speaking out. It all adds up, he gets his message out, Dennis gets his point across.

CBS wrap on Debate:

And, as if Al Gore all over the TV wasn’t enough of a 2000 flashback for you, Ralph Nader will be in attendance at Tuesday’s debate, at the invitation of fellow liberal Dennis Kucinich. Nader, the 2000 Green Party nominee, has appeared with Kucinich (although he hasn’t endorsed him) while continuing to flirt with a repeat run in ‘04.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/26/politics/main502099.shtml

Go-Along Media Ignoring Kucinich, Tuesday 09 Dec 2003 author: John Nichols

Diebold sought to shut down any debate about its machines by threatening legal actions against operators of Web sites that were publishing or linking to corporate documents that detailed flaws in Diebold equipment and irregularities in the certifying of the company's systems for elections.

When he learned of the legal threats, Kucinich took on the politically potent corporation. The Ohio congressman asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, and the ranking Democrat on that committee, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to investigate whether the company's actions were potential abuses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He also posted the controversial documents on his congressional Web site.

Diebold quickly backed down. And Kucinich used the development to declare, "In a democracy where half the people don't vote and where the last presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court, we cannot tolerate flawed voting equipment or intimidation of those who point out the flaws. Diebold backing down from its intimidation campaign is a positive step. An open and honest examination of the flaws in electronic voting will lead us to only one possible conclusion: electronic voting machines are dangerous to democracy because there is no way of ensuring their accuracy. We have to have a voter-verified paper trail for every election so that any errors and irregularities caused by the voting machines can be recovered."

All in all, this makes for a meaty story. A presidential candidate takes on a major corporation and wins in a fight over an issue that is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy.

So were there headlines about Kucinich's fight with Diebold? No. Television news reports? No. Lengthy discussions on public radio or commercial talk radio? No.

My fellow Americans, we aren't safe until we rid the globe of this evil "weed".