cannabisnews.com: Rosenfeld Has Received Marijuana from Government





Rosenfeld Has Received Marijuana from Government
Posted by CN Staff on December 09, 2003 at 20:47:15 PT
By Kelli Kennedy
Source: Boca Raton News 
With a slow exhale, a plume of smoke escapes from his marijuana cigarette. Dressed in a gray business suit, Irv Rosenfeld is the most unlikely person you’d expect to be lighting up during a quick lunch from his job as a high profile stockbroker.But Rosenfeld, who handles accounts in Boca Raton and Ft. Lauderdale, is not your stereotypical pothead.
Diagnosed with a rare bone disorder at the age of 10, he is one of seven people in the United States who receives medical marijuana from the government. The “compassionate use” program, which began in 1978, was cancelled in 1982, but Rosenfeld was “grandfathered in.”“I was told I would not live to my teenage years, I’m very fortunate,” said Rosenfeld, who couldn’t even go to school when he was younger due to excruciating pain. “I can take my medicine without having to worry about breaking the law.”This November, marked Rosenfeld’s 20-year anniversary surviving a somewhat ‘normal’ life, thanks to the cannabis.As for the rest of the people forbidden to use the drug for medical purposes, Rosenfeld says he’s tired of the government making criminals out of sick people. The stockbroker says he will continue to campaign for the hundreds of people who suffer needlessly because they are not granted the use of medical marijuana.He is one of four patients in the United States who underwent extensive testing in 2001 to determine the side effects of using cannabis.Neurologist, Dr. Ethan Russo, conducted the extensive study, which included M.R.I’s scans, chest x-rays, and blood work, in Montana. Russo said he was amazed that there had never been any government studies detailing the positive and/or negative effects of using medical marijuana.The tests, said Russo, showed “very few adverse effects in the patients,” no brain shrinkage, no hormone problems and no immune damage were evident.Their higher executive functions were fully intact, which, he says, is easy to prove in Rosenfeld, since the South Florida resident is a highly successful stockbroker who handles major accounts, despite a high intake of cannabis each day. “The truth is cannabis is very effective for a wide variety of medical conditions including pain, spasms, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma,” said Russo, who has been practicing for 20 years. “Irv’s functioning has gotten better over time, not worse, as what you might expect in someone with his condition.”But until the stigma is lifted, many advocates of medical marijuana say they don’t believe the federal government will legalize the drug.Registered nurse and founder of Patients Out of Time, Mary Lynn Matre, says she’s tired of excuses from the government.“These people are living with terminal diseases and doing what they can to have some quality of life,” said Matre, a Virginia based nurse who says she has seen patients make great strides in their daily functions thanks to medical marijuana.“The government’s big ‘out’ is that no research supports it, but for the most part they forbid research,” said Matre, who says her program is dedicated to educating health care profession and public about medical use of cannabis.Although they often get lumped in with recreational users who are hoping to legalize cannabis, none of them say they are looking for a law which will allow marijuana to become a free for all.“Regulate it sternly and put it in the hands of doctors,” said Rosenfeld, who has smoked 12 marijuana cigarettes a day for 21 years.“These are sick people who are dying. They don’t have time to wait for a law to change.”Complete Title: Irvin Rosenfeld Has Received 12 Cigarettes Daily from Government for 21 Years Source: Boca Raton News (FL)Author: Kelli KennedyPublished: Wednesday, December 10, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Boca Raton News Contact: kkennedy bocanews.comWebsite: http://www.bocaratonnews.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Patients Out of Time http://www.medicalcannabis.com/Chronic Cannabis Use in PDF Formathttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ccu.pdf Man Travels With Pot, His Medicinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15895.shtmlStockbroker Using Uncle Sam's MMJ for 20 Yearshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14794.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on December 11, 2003 at 22:26:19 PT:
Enviable Position?
Virgil; by the way; the HPD here DID kill my dog last time they invaded us. Sore subject, but anyhow, isn't Irv Rosenfeld in an enviable position? Just look at the "weed" he gets from the Feds! I assume he has alternate sources too. The Federal dirt weed is of practically no value or effect medically. I prefer creating my own sacrament and medicine legally. "Sacramedicine" (TM) is the world's safest, legalest and holiest clinical cannabis available. See us at www.sacramedicine.com *Consider the possibilities!
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Virgil on December 10, 2003 at 07:18:50 PT
Keeping up with Canadian politics
I have read that the Prime Minister is extremely powerful under Canadian law. I want to put up comments 3 and 4 in a thread at DU to help explain the parties in Canada. Remember that the NDP lead by Jack Layton is the party supporting the Logical Conclusion that Marc Emery endorsed. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=262305Comment3- The PC's (Progressive Conservatives) are a slightly-right of centre mirror equivalent of the (allegedly) slightly-left of centre Liberal Party. The Canadian Alliance consists of people who left the PC's precisely because they did not consider them to be a conservative party. The Canadian Alliance is the Canadian equivalent of the Republican Party. Since their creation the Canadian Alliance has complained about the PC's splitting the right-wing vote and allowing Liberal Majority Governments. This argument does not take into account the fact that PC supporters are three-and-a-half times more likely to vote Liberal as a second choice than CA. Therefore the CA have attempted to 'unite-the-right' by absorbing the PC's. Think of it like a bank merger. A larger bank with a poor public image wishes to absorb a smaller bank with a good customer service track record in order to increase market share. This is exactly what has happened. The merger has squeezed out true progressives like Brison, Clark, Herron and Marchand who could not sit with the Social Conservatives of the CA. Expect this 'united-right' party to be rejected by the vast majority of centrist Canadians.Comment4- the socialist/social democratic NDP sees a huge door opening. The Liberals have dominated the federal scene by playing both ends against the middle: for instance, giving a nod to the left by playing upon its fear of a right-wing government, but then governing from the centre-right.In the next election, the right-wing opposition looks to be in disarray: a new "conservative" party dominated by a fringe which was already in decline and has limited appeal beyond Alberta, a possible rump party of former "progressive" conservatives, and a number joining the Liberals. This means the Liberals will have no credible right to compete against next election (likely coming in the Spring). That's a nightmare scenario for a party which counts on scaring a good number of left/liberals into supporting it.Plus, their new leader, Paul Martin, is the most conservative Liberal leader in my lifetime, with damning ties - for leftists, at least - to big business.It's a recipe for a minority government. Leftists who would normally support the Liberals to stem the right will feel free to vote their conscience, which will help the NDP. (Which, recent polls show, is now Canadians second choice.)Plus, the NDP now has a leader to inspire it, Jack Layton, and was already reinvigorated. The NDP campaign, when the election comes, will be the most exciting to watch. It's been a while since that could be said.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Sam Adams on December 10, 2003 at 06:14:14 PT
More on Dean
did you guys see this from the Granitestaters.com website?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.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by jose melendez on December 10, 2003 at 04:32:01 PT
Raich v. Ashcroft
Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction
Case No. C 02 4872 MJJPRELIMINARYPlaintiffs 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. The supposition that this might occur does not give Congress
police power over this class of activity and all cases cited by the government are easily
distinguished, as set forth herein.
prohibition deemed illegal
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by jose melendez on December 10, 2003 at 04:14:16 PT
florida law declares common law in force
from:http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0002/SEC01.HTM&Title=-%3E2003-%3ECh0002-%3ESection%20012.01  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. History.--s. 1, Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.  
common law
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by jose melendez on December 10, 2003 at 04:11:35 PT
The Right to Present a Recognized Defense
from: http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nycraig.htm 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).  Where the defense was permitted in the common law, the cases generally required the existence of an "impending danger, present, imminent and not to be averted" (Note, Necessity as a Defense, 21 Colum.L.Rev. 71, 72-73;  see generally, 1 LaFave and Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.4, at 627-640). 
impending danger, present, imminent and not to be averted
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by jose melendez on December 10, 2003 at 03:55:55 PT
barristers, attorneys please confirm
A substance in Schedule I "has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and in its use under medical supervision does not meet accepted safety standards."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," LET IT BE KNOWN THEREFORE BY ALL PARTIES THAT said scheduling is clearly in violation of existing U.S. laws, and that those regulations are indeed applicable to O.N.D.C.P. and D.E.A.'s predatory and supressive violations of said U.S. law.
attention law enforcement
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Kegan on December 10, 2003 at 02:54:42 PT
Bush Will Be A Dictator
I'll just bet...... there will likely be some terrible 9/11-esque attack on the US by the CIA...... I mean "terrorists"... and there won't even BE an election.Forget it kids. The only way you can get Her Furher out of power is to have a civil war.Just an opinion from a Canadian observer
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Kegan on December 10, 2003 at 02:49:50 PT
Cannabis Culture Magazine
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/3231.htmlAn 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.Ultimately, the message Canada's pot activists send to police, the courts and the government is that the more we are slandered, the more we will speak out, the more we are oppressed, the more we will fight for our rights, and the more we are jailed, the more we will struggle for our freedom.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by jose melendez on December 10, 2003 at 02:48:14 PT
read the fine print!
 "Florida does not have an MMJ law that would excuse the use of this dangerous drug he has used for 21 years. "well, actually . . .from: http://www.mpp.org/statelaw/app_l.htmlThe 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 were582 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 680in 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.REVERSED with directions that judgment of acquittal be entered.
publish THIS!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Breeze on December 10, 2003 at 01:43:17 PT
clear strategy for Kucinich
Well, consider this. Now some dem's know who not to vote for, as not all people were extactly happy about a former tipper gore supporter to get the nomination.
Years ago, TIPPER went blitzkreig on the record industry, and war we are trying to end. She was definetly a supporter. But the current development also allows us to see who stands where in the situation, as well as giving a clear cut idea of how the other candidates can focus their attack. We need a prez with a grass roots approach to things, the little guy needs help bad- and the door has been closed for way too long to many issues that need to be addressed, and are not. Today there was even mention of a bribery, by a retiring head. Now, Dennis has a target.
 
Check this out- send it out- and then register!
(In other words, copy and paste it and then email it)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.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by BGreen on December 10, 2003 at 00:44:04 PT
Will Dean Issue A Ceasefire During The Year
he's going to spend on this "study," or will the carnage and torture of the infirmed continue unabashed?How much do you want to bet the DEAth will become a part of the so-called "experts" that will be conducting this study?The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by BGreen on December 10, 2003 at 00:34:15 PT
And What the F* % Are These *RISKS*?
The only RISK I've ever faced from cannabis besides a seed burn in my clothes is PRISON!Howard Dean deserves to be supported by Al Gore because they are one and the same.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on December 10, 2003 at 00:29:56 PT
Whoopee, The FDA and the NIH to the *RESCUE*
These two organizations are as guilty as the DEAth when it comes to the suppression and scientific coverup of medical cannabis.Howard Dean is not going to do a DAMN THING for us!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 09, 2003 at 23:31:42 PT
Howard Deans Comment on Medical Marijuana
Answering a question about medical marijuana, Dean said “I’ll give you the bad news first, which isn’t really bad news and that is that I don’t like legislators and political staff going around scientific inquiries. The hallmark of this administration is that, if they have a theory and a fact and the fact contradicts the theory, they throw out the fact. ... All I ask about marijuana is that we make sure it works before we do it. I will, as president, order the FDA and the NIH to do the studies and review the studies that have already been done, in a one-year period, and when they give us the studies, we’ll then approve whatever they recommend. I’ll tell you what I think the position that they will recommend will be: that you use medical marijuana for cancer and HIV patients, but they will not OK it for things like glaucoma, because there are other drugs and the benefits do not outweigh the risks, and that is how drugs ought to be to be evaluated.” http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/article-36357.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Virgil on December 09, 2003 at 23:15:03 PT
CNN video from Swissinfo.org
Comment7 has a link to Swissinfo.org but is not the video from CNN. On this link you have to find "No to Cannabis" in the middle at the bottom and click on it- http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=880&siteSect=880&SEARCH_STRING=cannabis&SEARCH_STRING_PERIOD=7&language=eng&search=search# 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Virgil on December 09, 2003 at 23:00:46 PT
Copy of my hempcity inquiry for the video link 
The Swiss Senate voted 25 to 0 for a legalization plan and the House vote kept getting pushed back and pushed back and recently rejected the Senate's call to the Logical Conclusion. 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. Does anyone have any Swiss info on the soon to be elections and how the issue is playing out?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Virgil on December 09, 2003 at 21:38:17 PT
Yes, DeVoHawk, it was real journalism
I read it when PuffTuff put the link up and was suprised that such a straight foward article appeared with real effort to ask an expert instead of calling the DEA to get someone to say "No medicine is smoked" and "We do not recognize any medical value of marijuana although the synthetic THC has remarkable placebo effects."Yes, this is real journalism. I am almost shocked that this would come out of Jeb's Florida. What is it that Marc Emery is having at the end of January that will have Dr. Russo speaking? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Nuevo Mexican on December 09, 2003 at 21:36:39 PT
Here we go, like fightin Wal-mart over and over ..
Did I miss this?U.S. House of Reps. Approves Bill to Censor American Citizens from Voicing Opposition to U.S. War on DrugsWASHINGTON - 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.htmGo-Along Media Ignoring Kucinich http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=369857&group=webcastWe 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.shtmlGo-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. http://www.indymedia.org/print.php3?article_id=369857
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on December 09, 2003 at 21:29:50 PT
Picture of Quality of Government MJ Supplied
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/debris.jpg
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by DeVoHawk on December 09, 2003 at 21:19:24 PT
The Truth Slowly Rises
This is such an excellent article. Dr. Ethan Russo does a stellar job explaining the fantastic benefits of Medical Marijuana."Their higher executive functions were fully intact, which, he says, is easy to prove in Rosenfeld, since the South Florida resident is a highly successful stockbroker who handles major accounts, despite a high intake of cannabis each day."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by gloovins on December 09, 2003 at 21:18:17 PT
yes i agree
Federal Marshals should be called out immediatly, hell-o-copters should be sent, multiple dogs should be sent in, at LEAST 25 squad cars deployed, 2 dozen DEA agents should hog-tie this man put a gun to his head and say "OK, now put the cannabis down s-l-o-w-l-y and you wont get shot you motherfucker". Yeah, geez I just don't feel safe in this country with someone in florida smoking pot. Something has to be done, people! There are people self-medicating themselves out there with plant smoke no less??!! My fellow Americans, we aren't safe until we rid the globe of this evil "weed".Only God can save us now I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on December 09, 2003 at 20:58:44 PT
Florida LEO should arrest him
Federal law is not supreme over state law. They are two seperate things. Just because the federal government plays hypocrisy with these 7 people and blesses their use with great embarassment and reluctance, is no reason the states should not enforce their laws on these criminals. Florida does not have an MMJ law that would excuse the use of this dangerous drug he has used for 21 years. The laws should be enforced and the LEO's should do their job and if they want to fit in they should raid his house in the middle of the night and shoot his dog. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment