cannabisnews.com: Shattered Grass? 





Shattered Grass? 
Posted by CN Staff on December 08, 2004 at 12:31:47 PT
By Sarah Phelan 
Source: Metro Santa Cruz
It's not looking good for medical marijuana advocates in the landmark case currently before the Supreme Court. As they watch with a mixture of hope and horror at justices arguing about wheat production rather than the medical and humanitarian importance of the case, they're already asking the toughest question of all: 'What happens if we lose?' "WAMM is a club you literally have to be dying to get into," says Val Corral, co-founder of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana.
As if to illustrate her point, the photos of 140 WAMM members who've died cover "The Wall of the Dead" in the collective's West Side office. They are only barely outnumbered by the group's 175 surviving members, including spiritual luminary Ram Dass and novelist Robert Anton Wilson, whose access to pot's pain-relieving, nausea-inhibiting properties hangs in the balance on the opposite coast. And yet, the value of medical marijuana itself will hardly be considered in the landmark medical marijuana case currently before the Supreme Court. Recently, Supreme Court justices heard Raich v. Ashcroft, a case centered on two chronically ill California women, who want the feds to stop interfering in their medical marijuana use. Though 11 states (Montana is the most recent) allow some medical marijuana use, the federal government continues not to recognize marijuana's medical usefulness, nor to address the question of legalizing it across the board. Instead, the Supreme Court debate on the case, Raich v. Ashcroft, has been framed in terms of interstate commerce. Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project has been dumbfounded to hear the justices invoking Wickard v. Filburn, a 62-year-old Supreme Court decision used to uphold Congress' efforts to support grain prices by controlling wheat production. But he holds out some hope for a medical marijuana victory. "Certainly some previous decisions suggest some justices have respect for states' rights and the commerce clause," says Mirken. "Theoretically, the feds' ability to ban illicit drugs comes from its ability to regulate interstate commerce. But the feds arguing that two women in California, using their own soil and equipment, and not selling anything, are engaging in interstate commerce--I'm sorry, but that's crazy!" Crazy like a radical right-wing activist judge. "It looks like Wickard to me," said Justice Antonin Scalia on hearing preliminary arguments on Nov. 29, including those from attorneys for Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who argued that the pot their clients use is not grown for money and never crosses state lines. Said Scalia of marijuana cultivation, "Why is this not economic activity? This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere." Waves of Grain The Supreme Court's ruling is expected by spring 2005, and will quickly reverberate across California, since Raich, who lives in Oakland, has the exact same thing at stake as WAMM: protection from the feds. Raich, who uses cannabis to treat scoliosis, endometriosis, severe headaches, chronic nausea, seizures, uterine fibroid tumors and a brain tumor, first joined forces with Diane Monson, who grows and uses pot to treat severe back spasms, two years ago. Their alliance began after DEA agents raided Monson's garden in Oroville, in Butte County. After a three-hour standoff with local law enforcement, the federal agents seized and destroyed Monson's six pot plants. Outraged, Raich and Monson petitioned a federal district court in California to force the DEA to butt out of their doctor-prescribed medical marijuana use. Though that court refused to grant their request, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ordered the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction. WAMM, whose garden of 167 plants was raided a month after the Monson bust, subsequently won a similar injunction against the feds. Until it was issued, the Corrals--who were arrested during the 2002 raid, but released the same day--were living in legal limbo, thanks to a clause in the Controlled Substances Act that allows the feds to forfeit people's property up to five years after a bust. Their federal fears temporarily assuaged, the Corrals began growing another pot garden, including a monster named Victoria which WAMM cheekily billed as "Our country's first federally protected marijuana plant." The U.S. Justice Department, however, immediately appealed the Raich injunction to the Supreme Court, hence the Nov. 29 hearing. Should the justices rule against Raich, the Corrals would reopen themselves to the possibility of forfeiture if WAMM grows another garden next spring. And so far, the case does not appear to be going in their favor. Supreme Court justices met the Raich/Monson states' rights defense with more than a little skepticism. Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement argued that it would be impossible to allow medical use of marijuana while banning recreational use. And the U.S. Justice Department maintains there is no separation between private marijuana use and interstate commerce, insisting that homegrown pot stimulates the illicit drug market by increasing the amount of marijuana available in the nation. Bench Press As Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice, who represents WAMM, explains, "The feds believe that if you let marijuana be grown like this, prices will come down and it will be easier for people to use more of it. And then there's the fact that people believe that if you want to stomp on the left, keep going after marijuana, because they're the folks most likely to be caught with it." Rice, who attended the Nov. 29 Supreme Court hearing in person, admits that it was not what he was hoping for. He says the two justices who've already had cancer, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, both seemed sympathetic to Raich and Monson's case. Since Clarence Thomas, who didn't say anything that day, and Rehnquist, who was not in court because of ill-health, are big on states' rights, he thinks the case could go WAMM's way. But he says that once Randy Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor who's representing the two women, got up, "the knives came out." "There was no sympathy from Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy," says Rice. Justice Stephen Breyer, who told Barnett that his clients should ask the FDA to reclassify marijuana as appropriate for medical use, was "really unsympathetic," says Rice. In the end, framing the debate as a states' rights argument, rather than emphasizing compassion for the sick and dying, is a strategic decision by Raich and Monson's attorneys that Rice says may or may not backfire. "It's easy to say in hindsight, 'Oh, they goofed in taking that tack', but we usually always also argue the right to ameliorate pain when someone is close to death," he says. If the court rules against Raich and Monson, Rice says the Corrals likely wouldn't be in danger if they cease to operate WAMM, "but if they continue to do so, they definitely risk being arrested and having their property forfeited." As for where a loss in the Supreme Court would leave the rest of California's medical pot users in general, Rice believes individual patients aren't going to be at risk, given the state's medical pot initiative and the county's 3-pound limit, but cannabis clubs, coops and dispensaries could be in danger. "The alarming part of all this is that patients who aren't able to grow their own medicine, or grow with others, will be back to buying on the black market, a situation in which they'll have no control over the quality of the pot they buy, including whether it was grown organically or with pesticides," he says. With Santa Cruz County Sheriff Mark Tracy having resigned Dec. 1, Rice hopes that Chief Deputy Steve Robbins, who'll take over until the next election, will continue to treat marijuana as a community health issue. "The 3-pound limit is not that much if you're really sick," says Rice, noting that someone who smokes a pack a day consumes 5 pounds of tobacco annually. But whatever happens in the Supreme Court, Rice says the justices' decision won't gut California's medical marijuana laws. "It's just gonna make it more difficult to produce pot," he says, noting that the Supreme Court has also left the Conant decision intact, thereby protecting doctors' rights to discuss and prescribe marijuana. The Big Picture Meanwhile, MPP's Bruce Mirken says whatever happens in Raich v. Ashcroft, time will show that Bush was on the wrong side of history. "In Montana's 2004 election, medical marijuana outpolled Bush by three points, " says Mirken. This despite the fact that Montana was a "red state" in which Bush clobbered Kerry with a 59 percent win--medical marijuana did even better, winning in a 62 percent landslide. He also notes that support for the two women's case currently before the Supreme Court has come from some conservative quarters, including the states of Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri, which take a hard line on drugs and punish first-time users with prison sentences as long as 10 years. "These three states aren't exactly a den of pot-smoking hippies the last time I looked," Mirken says. "Their support is more about preserving states' rights, than promoting medical marijuana use." So, while Mirken feels it would be a tragedy if the women don't prevail in Raich v. Ashcroft, "The fact is that the train has already left the station." "Thirty years from now, we'll look back at the current federal policy of jailing medical marijuana growers as every bit as incomprehensible as the burning of witches," he says. "Ultimately, we will win. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, it cannot overturn Prop. 215, and the protections of patients in California and other states with medical marijuana initiatives." WAMM, of course, is also contemplating what it will do in the unhappy event that the Raich case goes south. "To quit at this point is to lose every step forward we've taken," says Corral, sitting in WAMM's West Side office that in spite of the current stressful situation has a peaceful ambience, thanks to a healthy dose of wind chimes, prayer flags and statues of the Buddha. "The real question is how to succeed in a way that not only saves lives but our own work, too ...other than writing a book from jail." Corral hasn't forgotten that the city and the county of Santa Cruz have put their necks on the line here, too, thanks to staged medical pot giveaways on the steps of City Hall following WAMM's 2002 bust, and the county's recent OKing of a 3-pound-per-person limit for medical marijuana users and the introduction of a medical cannabis voluntary ID card. She realizes there's a lot at stake in this case for a lot of people. "I don't for one moment want to deny the importance of what has already happened, " says Corral. "We grew the only legal medical marijuana garden in the nation that didn't belong to the government." But she has to be realistic about the possibility that whatever protections WAMM has now could quickly be lost, and yet the group's work must somehow continue. "The feds' actions have not stopped the suffering of our patients. They haven't cured anyone with their policies. There is no cure for AIDS. Not one paraplegic is up and running. All they offer is suffering, so for us to stand down in face of that would be an absurdity," she says. "There's always something else we can do." That something else, says Corral, could take the form of small collectives that maintain a low profile and work together to share their knowledge of growing cannabis.  Meet the New AG, Same As the Old AGStill, even she admits that the collective is currently facing what potentially could be a very frightening and painful immediate future. And her fears certainly weren't eased by the news that Alberto Gonzales, Bush's former White House Counsel, will likely replace John Ashcroft as U.S. Attorney General. "You mean the guy who called the Geneva Convention 'quaint and outdated'? I can't imagine anyone in Bush's back pocket would have any sense of compassion. Why would anyone want to be Bush's attorney general if they did? The only news that I think could be good at this point would be that Bush is no longer president," says Corral. "It's such a criminal element that's operating it, there's a focus on overtaking the world through economics." Weirdly enough, though, all of the current obstacles have made her even more resolute. "We cannot continue to close hospitals and kick people out of vets' homes here, and destroy people's medicine, while blowing up other people's countries," she says. "It's suffering that makes people say 'No more!' and which inspires WAMM to carry on, no matter what. You cook it down and it's as simple as that." Many people are under the impression that a negative Supreme Court ruling would make medical marijuana illegal, and Andrea Tischler of the medical pot-friendly Compassion Flower Inn in downtown Santa Cruz realizes that. But she wants people to remember that individuals with a medical marijuana prescription will still be protected by Proposition 215. Tischler does, however, note that there continues to be a Catch 22--people who have medical pot recommendations but can't grow their own can't get their medicine, since there currently aren't any dispensaries in the county. "Maybe we'll have to go underground on the growing front, and take care of it in our own community. WAMM is very visible, very public. So, maybe we will need to form smaller groups, with 20 people in each cell, until this difficult period passes, which hopefully will be over in four more years, with impeachment always being an option." Tischler says that with an estimated 1,500 medical pot patients in the city, and 4,000 patients countywide, most have to hop on a bus to Oakland or San Francisco to buy an eighth to last a week or two. Which is why Tischler's been in communication with the Santa Cruz City Council, asking if they're in favor of a city ordinance allowing medicinal users 3 pounds of dry mature cannabis buds, 100 square feet of garden canopy--and a greater amount with a doctor's approval. She'd also like the city to pass a resolution making cannabis possession a low law enforcement priority, and see a task force recommend where dispensaries and cooperatives can operate in the city. The Devil in the DetailsSanta Cruz Mayor Mike Rotkin says he supports the idea of a citywide ordinance, though he thinks we're already covered by the county ordinance. He says the SCPD already makes a low priority of enforcement against people for private use. Rotkin is not however a fan of the task force idea, preferring to amend current ordinances to allow dispensaries in locations that seem appropriate--namely ones not close to schools, residential zones or downtown in the commercial area. That leaves the city's large industrial zones--an idea that seems to fit those of Capitola Police Chief Rick Ehle, who concluded, after 25 years in Oakland, that most major turf battles were about selling pot. "I'm not taking a position against medical marijuana," says Ehle, " but if we had community or commercial grows with guards, that would be great from a public safety point of view. Three pounds of pot, or six if there's two patients growing together, in a house is too much, when you can have your throat slit for $500 or less." A Capitola resident recently did in fact have his throat slit, in an incident that illustrates the safety issue that often gets left out of the medical marijuana debate. Gang affiliates from Southern California violently burglarized a home in Capitola where the occupant was growing large quantities of bud. Though the victim survived being stabbed and shot multiple times, Ehle worries about what it means for the safety of residential communities to have large medical marijuana gardens in their midst. WAMM member Suzanne Pfeil, who grows her own marijuana to ease the pain of post-polio syndrome and previously has been robbed, says she somewhat solved the problem this year by installing a $70 closed-circuit camera. This allowed her to capture images of the thief, thus helping the police track down the perpetrator, who was charged with felony burglary and breaking and entering. "My advice to anyone growing theirs at home," says Ehle, "is keep your mouth shut and don't let anyone know what you're doing--except the police, because I don't want my staff walking unknown into the middle of potentially lethal situations." Meanwhile, Tischler points to the September arrest of dealers on Pacific Avenue as evidence that without dispensaries for medical marijuana patients, many will be left to get it on the street. "Which is not what we want. We want safe, group access, not on the streets, which would be good for a city's image, too," she says. Back in CourtIronically, the Corrals' main hope of growing a garden in 2005 may lie with the decision-making abilities of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Corral believes the court could end in a draw if Rehnquist is too sick to rule, in which case the decision reverts back to the 9th circuit--and she believes that court will uphold WAMM's original injunction. But were Rehnquist to die, the Corrals fear that Bush would appoint a radical conservative judge who would rule against Raich and thus jeopardize WAMM's garden and the Corrals' freedom. "This may be a states' rights issue, but we don't think the Supreme Court will view it as such," she says. "They'll see it as a Controlled Substances Act issue. It would be wonderful if this court were willing to look past that, but we don't think they're interested in the rights of people who are sick and dying. But in some cases, they've made some remarkably enlightened decisions in the last few years, so one can only hope." That said, she fears that since DEA head Karen Tandy is an expert in forfeiture, if the Raich case goes down in flames, the feds won't be arresting people so much as taking everything they own. "That's a good way to destroy someone in the USA. America is all about what you own, that's how you fit in socially, by what you have. "Mike and I have worked for 30 years, living in a shoe box, washing in a teacup. We had a very simple life, before all this started," she says. "But now I think we'll be under the gun, if they catch us growing or distributing anything, in the event the injunction is overturned, which they'll probably do by next spring, just in time for the next planting season. Probably, they'll be there the next day, with their guns drawn. They told us they'd be back." Source: Metro Santa Cruz (CA)Author: Sarah Phelan Published: December 8, 2004Copyright: 2004 Metro Publishing Inc.Contact: msc metcruz.comWebsite: http://www.metroactive.com/cruz/Related Articles & Web Sites:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Mike & Valerie Corralhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/valc.htmAngel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmLet States Decide Medicinal Pot Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19977.shtmlMedical Pot or Not? High Court To Decide http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19973.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #21 posted by afterburner on December 09, 2004 at 10:01:45 PT
On Mark Souder
US IN: PUB LTE: Souder's Anti-Marijuana Crusade 
by Gary Storck, (08 Dec 2004) News-Sentinel Indiana
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1758/a03.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by afterburner on December 09, 2004 at 08:17:38 PT
Citation: R. v. Graham and Parks, Excerpt:
{ANALYSIS{Is simple possession of marihuana an offence known to law?{[12] The Ontario cases, specifically Parker and J.P., create difficulty in this province, not so much because of their reasoning, but because of the remedy granted in Parker. The issue then becomes this: is the result of the Ontario decisions (to date) that section 4(1) of the Act as it relates to simple possession of marihuana invalid in this province?{[13] The applicants' counsel submit that the law is invalid for these reasons:{"1. Parliament alone can save s.4(1) CDSA as it relates to the inclusion of marijuana.
2. The implementation of the MMAR, or any other regulatory scheme does not suffice. Only a legislative change carried out through a real discussion in Parliament can restore the inclusion of marijuana under s.4(1).
3. As this has not been done in the time frame given in Parker the inclusion of marijuana in s.4(1) is struck down. Section 4(1) must then be re-enacted due to the previous section being struck down.
4. While the Ontario decisions are not binding on this court, they are extremely persuasive. Even without any binding effect, the arguments themselves are valid and should be used to their utmost.
5. Any vagueness in the law is to be interpreted to the benefit of the accused, especially where penal sanctions are a possibility."{[14] Crown Counsel submits that the law is still valid until the British Columbia Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada decides otherwise. Crown also relies on Hadwen.{[15] In my view, the applicants' submissions are founded on the basic premise that while conceding that I am not bound by Parker and J.P., I ought to follow them. This is an incorrect premise in this particular case. As both decisions are from an appellate court outside of this province, they would not be binding, but may be persuasive, if they were "on point", but they are not. Parker and J.P. may be persuasive, if and only if, I were being asked to rule on a section 7 Charter challenge based on medicinal use of marihuana. That I am not asked to do. {[16] The applicants must provide some legal basis for a conclusion that section 4(1) of the Act is invalid in this province. For the reasons stated above, Parker and J.P. are not helpful. The applicants have not otherwise provided persuasive or binding authority from outside of this province that the Parker declaration of invalidity applies nationwide.{[17] I am bound, however, by the principle of comity to consider the ruling by my colleague Judge Chen in Masse. I disagree with Judge Chen's analysis to the extent that he applied Parker and J.P. when he was not ruling on a section 7 Charter application. However, I may depart from his judgment and the principle of comity only for these reasons:{[1] Subsequent decisions have affected the validity of the impugned judgment;{[2] It is demonstrated that some binding authority in case law or some relevant statute was not considered;{[3] The judgment was unconsidered, a nisi prius judgment given in circumstances familiar to all trial judges, where the exigencies of the trial require an immediate decision without opportunity to fully consult authority.{(Re: Hansard Spruce Mills Ltd. (1954), 4 D.L.R. 590 (B.C.S.C.)).{[18] Of course, the applicants urge me to apply the principle of comity and follow Masse. Crown Counsel submits that I ought not follow Masse as J.P. is not a binding authority. Also, the validity of J.P. is questionable as Rogin, J. did not consider Hitzig. Hitzig is not ad idem with J.P. regarding the declaration. Therefore J.P. cannot be said the affect the validity of the British Columbia cases Nicholls, Therrien or R.(A.C).{[19] After careful reading of the Masse decision and submissions of counsel, I am not aware of any subsequent decisions that have affected the validity of Judge Chen's judgment. Also, Judge Chen thoroughly analyzed the existing case law and statutes, so I could not conclude that it was in any way a nisi prius judgment. {[20] Crown Counsel submits that I ought to depart from the Masse decision because it was incorrect decided upon questionable, non-binding authority. That, however, is not the test. As I stated above, all relevant cases and statutes were considered and analyzed. Although I would have come to a different conclusion on those authorities than Judge Chen, again according to Re: Hansard, that is not reason enough to depart from his decision.{[21] Therefore, I must follow Masse and the conclusion that section 4(1) of the Act as it related to the simple possession of marihuana is invalid.{Is there an abuse of process?{[22] Applicants' counsel relied upon the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jewitt (1985), 21 C.C. C. (3d) 7, for authority for a finding of abuse of process and a stay of proceedings. The court held that:{"The stay of proceeding for abuse of process is given as a substitute for an acquittal because, while on the merits the accused may not deserve an acquittal, the Crown by its abuse of process is disentitled to a conviction. No consideration of the merits - that is whether the accused is guilty independently of a consideration of the conduct of the Crown - is required to justify a stay." (pg. 23){[23] Chief Justice Dickson, writing for the court, adopted the conclusion of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Young (1984), 13 C.C.C. (3d) 1:{",,,'There is a residual discretion in a trial court judge to stay proceeding where compelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community's sense of fair play and decency and to prevent the abuse of a court's process through oppressive or vexatious proceedings.'
I would also adopt the caveat added by the court in Young that this is a power which can be exercised only in the 'clearest of cases'".(pg. 14){[24] Having found that the law is invalid, the spectre of abuse of process raises its head. Is it an abuse of process to prosecute under an invalid law? I take from Stavert and Clarke that it most certainly is an abuse of process. I agree with that conclusion.{[25] But the analysis must go further in this case. My colleague Judge Stansfield wrote in Nicholls, the state of the law regarding simple possession of marihuana is a "mess". Justice Buchan in Clarke and my colleague Judge Palmer in R. (A.C.) wrote that the law is in a state of "flux". The question is this: how can an informed citizen know the state of the law when judges cannot agree amongst themselves; when it appears that possession of marihuana may be legal in some provinces and not in others; and when Parliament does not amend or re-enact invalid legislation? The answer is self-evident: he or she cannot. Therefore, even if I had found that the law was valid in this province and it was not an abuse of process to prosecute under it, I would still find an abuse of process in this case. {[26] Therefore, as this is in my view the "clearest of cases", I grant both of the applications for stays of proceedings.  ________________________{M. Buller Bennett, P.C.J.}The next question is: what is the effect, if any, on this ruling of the 2003-Oct-07 Ontario Court of Appeals ruling that supposedly "fixed" the MMAR regulations and the 2003-Dec-2003 "trio" of Canadian Supreme Court decisions? Like the US Supreme Court cases, the decisions are made on a narrow set of legal issues that may or may not address the issues raised in the above citation. Many Canadian cannabis activists are convinced that the issues raised in R. v. Graham and Parks have not yet been properly dealt with by Parliament. Even the re-introduced, re-crim bill now being considered in Parliament does not address supply of medical cannabis, which was the original issue of the Parker case, leading to the declaration of the unConstitutionality of section 4(1) of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act as it relates to simple possession of marihuana. Also as Steve Kubby points out R. v. Graham and Parks is a legally-binding precedent in BC, one which must be considered in the upcoming appeal to the BC Supreme Court!
Citation: R. v. Graham and Parks: 2003-10-06
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by afterburner on December 09, 2004 at 07:19:11 PT
My Question Revisited in *This* Article
"Someone said in one of ... [the] articles something to the effect that it was a mistake to have Angel as the front person for this case." --afterburner in Supremes on Pot http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/19/thread19946.shtml#12"I found it!" States'Rights Defense Falters in MMJ Case: afterburner http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19912.shtml#8 Here it is again in more detail: {But [Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice, who represents WAMM,] says that once Randy Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor who's representing the two women, got up, "the knives came out." {"There was no sympathy from Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy," says Rice. Justice Stephen Breyer, who told Barnett that his clients should ask the FDA to reclassify marijuana as appropriate for medical use, was "really unsympathetic," says Rice. {In the end, framing the debate as a states' rights argument, rather than emphasizing compassion for the sick and dying, is a strategic decision by Raich and Monson's attorneys that Rice says may or may not backfire.}
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by siege on December 08, 2004 at 19:52:11 PT
 Hope
tie A knot in his tail, There was a story that wend with it true or fable I don't know. the last time I heard it I was about 10 yrs old and thats 55 yrs ago.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 16:26:32 PT
Seige
I never knew anyone else to use that expression. My grandmother is often "gonna tie a knot in someone's tail"."A knot in his tail" will do him some good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by siege on December 08, 2004 at 16:15:33 PT
Comment #9 
This just tide a """Knot""" in Bush's Butt.
as he talked about pot use to the MP'S in canada. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 16:11:56 PT
Scalia's mind
"Said Scalia of marijuana cultivation, "Why is this not economic activity? This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere."The best swipe at Scalia's statement, I either read here or somewhere else...With that line of thinking he could see breastfeeding as an economic activity. After all, when a mother breastfeeds she's not buying formula...thus effecting economic activity.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by global_warming on December 08, 2004 at 15:55:06 PT
Confused
"Said Scalia of marijuana cultivation, "Why is this not economic activity? This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere."Can Justice Scalia be so ignorant? Could he be suggesting that a sick person go out into the streets and commit a crime, to purchase this substance from a known criminal and potential felon? I cannot imagine that this man, Justice Scalia, would approve of any one being forced out into the streets to engage in criminal activity , especially if this person is burdened with some terrible affliction such as cancer.If Justice Scalia is not careful, he might be confused with someone who is working for the people that profit from the underworld and such criminals that currently are known as the Drug Kingpins."Said Scalia of marijuana cultivation, "Why is this not economic activity? This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere."If Justice Scalia is truly a man of law, and is aware of the roots of this authority of law, then he must rule to protect that frightened and sick human being from the grips of the night and all those offensive creatures that cling to their ill gotten deeds and actions.My prayers are for those sick people that are fighting to hold onto life, and to those victimless souls that are being held behind bars of steel.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 15:34:58 PT
Provincial?
I don't understand their court system...and Provincial seems that it might be a little place in the back woods...but any ruling against a cannabis persecution is a breath of fresh air.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 15:32:40 PT
I think this is the gist of it
"A BC Provincial judge has just ruled in R. v. Graham and Parks that Canada's marijuana laws are such a mess that it is an abuse of power to charge anyone with possession of marijuana."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on December 08, 2004 at 15:23:41 PT
I Read It Too!
I didn't understand what it means.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 15:16:59 PT
Steve
So sorry. I meant to say either from the Kubbys or S. or Steve Kubby and got quadrifangled.:-(
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 15:12:52 PT
an excerpt from a note from the S. Kubby
A BC Provincial Court has just ruled against the pot laws -- just as 
our current BC Supreme Court challenge argues!It's true. A BC Provincial judge has just ruled in R. v. Graham and 
Parks that Canada's marijuana laws are such a mess that it is an abuse 
of power to charge anyone with possession of marijuana.The provincial judge, , M. Buller Bennett, P.C.J., went through the 
whole history of any case challenging the validity of section 4(1) of 
the the CDSA. What this history of cases shows is a complete breakdown 
of the rule of law.When you read cases, you begin to see that judges must be extremely 
careful to make sure that they have the authority to set down a ruling 
as they do. It must be based on logical reasoning from previous cases. 
 Sometimes I have seen judges referencing Roman law or English law from 
the 1000's. This creates the rule of law, a consistent way of creating 
law that takes into consideration human rights as well as society's 
need for peace and order. A delicate balance.In this case, the judge recognized that with the confusing array of 
decisions before him, it was clear that no person could readily make an 
informed decision on whether marijuana is legal or not. Therefore, in 
cases where there is confusion, the benefit of the doubt goes to the 
accused.What this means for us is that at every opportunity we must fight and 
challenge the CDSA. If we keep chipping away, it will fall.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 15:11:29 PT
Check your mail
for a post from Steve Kubby.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Hope on December 08, 2004 at 15:10:22 PT
FoM
I know! I know!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 08, 2004 at 14:31:01 PT
afterburner
Something happened that has people upbeat in Canada today. Have you heard anything so far? I'm not sure I understand it all so I won't even try.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on December 08, 2004 at 14:10:44 PT
siege
Thank You!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by siege on December 08, 2004 at 14:06:13 PT
HHS Stalls on Medical Marijuana Decision
HHS Stalls on Medical Marijuana DecisionHeat Turning Up on Government to Correct 'Medical Marijuana Misinformation'http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=1467
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on December 08, 2004 at 13:24:52 PT
Calvina, Mark, and the FDA
Ms. Calvina Fay, and the whole concept of "Drug Free America," was shot down by Dr. Andrew Weil as "laughable." When the latest figures show 44% of Americans take pharmaceutical drugs, can you say "Drug Free America"? Accountability *is* the issue: how can we trust the corrupt FDA, approvers of Vioxx, and many other drugs with dangerous side effects and addictive character?And Souder: his record speaks for itself; are we to believe he has had a change of heart?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on December 08, 2004 at 13:12:09 PT
Grow Wheat, Legal US Economic Action; Cannabis Not
The Dirty Little Secret of Wickard v. Filburn (FDR's ''Baby'') http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19974.shtml#5Using a New Deal ruling, obtained by liberal FDR's "packing" the Supreme Court, to justify denying a conservative ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft is philosophically corrupt. Do the Justices want us to believe that they really want to encourage sick people to obtain their medical cannabis on the black market? "The feds' actions have not stopped the suffering of our patients. They haven't cured anyone with their policies. There is no cure for AIDS. Not one paraplegic is up and running. All they offer is suffering, so for us to stand down in face of that would be an absurdity," [Corral] says. "There's always something else we can do." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on December 08, 2004 at 13:04:07 PT
Press Release from Drug Free America 
Drug Free America Foundation Endorses House 'Medical' Marijuana BillDecember 8, 2004ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Dec. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Drug Free America Foundation supports Representative Mark Souder and the Safe and Effective Drug Act (H.R. 5429). This legislation will educate the public about the harms of medical excuse marijuana as well as protect the terminally ill from those whose sole intention is to legalize all Schedule I drugs.According to Ms. Fay, "What this Bill will do is separate the deceit of the drug legalization advocates' hidden agenda from the needs of the terminally ill. We have never taken issue with the truly sick who need legitimate medicine; we take issue with the wealthy businessmen who want to profit from their suffering. We also take issue with illegal drug users who want to toke up under the guise of using 'medicine.'"This bill will direct the National Institutes of Health to examine the available scientific data regarding the safety and effectiveness of smoking marijuana. It will also require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to post this information and distribute it to public health entities."Accountability is key," says Fay. "If the legalizers are truly compassionate towards the ill they should be thrilled about this act because the effectiveness of marijuana for medical purposes will again be researched. Somehow I don't think they will. For it's obvious that the true intent of the pushers behind the drug legalization movement is far from compassionate and not even close to being scientific."The Food and Drug Administration and medical community should decide on questions of medicine-not special interest groups, not individuals and never public opinion. Modern medicine relies on proven scientific research, not polling results.Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. is a drug prevention organization committed to developing, promoting and sustaining global drug strategies, policies and laws that will reduce illegal drug use, drug addiction and drug-related injury and death. For more information, contact Lana Beck, DFAF Director of Communications, at (727) 828-0211, after hours, (727) 403-7571, or visit http://www.dfaf.org Copyright: 2004 U.S. Newswire http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40475
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment