cannabisnews.com: Congressman Impresses Medical-Pot Advocacy Group





Congressman Impresses Medical-Pot Advocacy Group
Posted by CN Staff on March 11, 2005 at 07:43:49 PT
By Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel
Well, Farr out. U.S. Rep. Sam Farrís efforts in the nationís Capitol on medical marijuana policy has garnered the Central Coast congressman an honor from a national advocacy group.Farr, D-Carmel, is set to be honored by the Marijuana Policy Project when it celebrates its 10th anniversary May 4 in Washington, D.C.
"He has stood up and taken the lead," said Bruce Mirken, the organizationís spokesman. "When someone has taken the lead, we think they deserve some recognition."While California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996 to allow medical marijuana, the federal government continues to categorize pot as illegal under any situation.That conflict has been the basis of Farrís work on the issue. "We do an awful lot of denying people a chance at hope based on political mores," Farr said Thursday, noting the honor has been the source of some ribbing from congressional colleagues. "It is a statesí rights battle. What weíre trying to say is if states pass these laws, the federal government ought to recognize them."Farr, along with U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, introduced a resolution in 2003 that would have allowed for a medical-necessity defense in federal marijuana cases.The measure failed to make it to a floor vote. Farr said he is mulling whether to resubmit the bill, but he knows that may be an uphill battle with a conservative Republican-controlled Congress and a GOP president."Itís sort of an exercise in futility with this administration," he said. Farr also condemned the September 2002 Drug Enforcement Administration raid of the Davenport garden operated by the Santa Cruz area cooperative Wo/Manís Alliance for Medical Marijuana. "Heís reflecting what is going on in his district," Mirken said.Also to be honored at the May 4 gala will be talk show host Montel Williams, who uses marijuana to treat multiple sclerosis symptoms. Another honoree will be Angel Raich, a California medical marijuana user who now has a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging whether the federal government has authority to regulate medically used pot where money is not exchanged and therefore not an interstate commerce issue under the Constitution. A West Coast version of the gala is planned in Los Angeles for May 9.The Marijuana Policy Project works to remove criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors.Complete Title: Congressman Farr Impresses Medical-Pot Advocacy Group For more information, visit: http://www.mpp.org/Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer Published: March 11, 2005 Copyright: 2005 Santa Cruz SentinelContact: editorial santa-cruz.comWebsite: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by Truth on March 11, 2005 at 08:50:24 PT
MARIJUANA LEGISLATION: Legislators avoid pot decis
"You can get over an addiction, but you can't get over a conviction," added Cole, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-11-Fri-2005/news/26044783.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on March 11, 2005 at 08:37:52 PT
Certiorari
We need fancy words and august bodies thousands of miles away to buffer the brutality of the medical MJ laws.  This is how our modern, civilized fascism is effected upon the apathetic, distracted populace.It's HARD to deal with thuggish LEO's attacking and robbing sick people. LEO's that YOU paid. The last thing we want is a direct look into the moral mirror on this issue.  It must be OK because the well-educated, specialist legal experts say it's OK. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Hope on March 11, 2005 at 08:06:03 PT
This one is better
CERTIORARI - Lat. 'To be informed of.' Refers to the order a court issues so that it can review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities. When such an order is made it is said that the court has granted certiorari. Also called 'Cert.'An order issued by the Supreme Court directing the lower court to transmit records for a case for which it will hear on appeal. Certiorari is the general method most cases make their way to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court since it has specific jurisdiction over a very limited range of disputes.To be certified of; to be informed of. This is the name of a writ issued from a superior court directed to one of inferior jurisdiction, commanding the latter to certify and return to the former the record in the particular case. A certiorari differs from a writ of error. There is a distinction also between a habeus corpus and a certiorari. The certiorari removes the cause; habeus corpus only supersedes the proceedings below.By the common law a supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all inferior tribunals and to pass upon their jurisdiction and decisions on questions of law. But in general the determination of such inferior courts on questions of fact are conclusive and cannot be reversed on certiorari unless some statute confers the power on such supreme court. When any error has occurred in the proceedings of the court below different from the course of the common law, in any stage of the cause, either civil or criminal cases, the writ of certiorari is the only remedy to correct such error, unless some other statutory remedy has been given. A certiorari, for example, is the correct process to remove the proceedings of a court of sessions or of county commissioners in laying out highways.Sometimes the writ of certiorari is used as auxiliary process in order to obtain a full return to some other process. When, for example, the record of an inferior court is brought before a superior court by appeal, writ of error, or other lawful mode, and there is a manifest defect, or a suggestion of diminution, a certiorari is awarded requiring a perfect transcript and all papers.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Hope on March 11, 2005 at 07:58:21 PT
Certiorari (cert.)
Certiorari (cert.)
The U.S. Supreme Court gives full consideration to but a small fraction of the cases it has authority to review. With many important categories of cases, the party seeking Supreme Court review does so by "petitioning" the Court to issue a "writ of certiorari." (See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. ßß 1254, 1257, 2350.) (Some state appeals courts -- e.g., Ala., Ark., Colo., Conn., Fla., Ga., La., N.J. -- employ the same terminology.) If the Court decides to review one or more issues in such a case it grants "certiorari" (often abbreviated as "cert."). If the Court decides not to review the case it denies "cert." 
While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules lists some of the considerations that may lead the Court to grant certiorari. But the decision to grant or deny cert. is discretionary. Under long-standing internal Court practice if four justices favor granting a petition for cert. it will be granted. Originally, the writ of certiorari was a proceeding through which a superior court required a lower court to submit the full record of a case for review. Under the current rules and practice of the Supreme Court, however, key elements of the proceedings below are submitted along with a petition for certiorari. (See Supreme Court Rules, Rule 14.) And in some states the old terminology has been replaced. In Arizona, for example, relief formerly obtained by the writs of prohibition, mandamus and certiorari is now obtained through a "special action." The Court's orders granting or denying cert. are issued as simple statements of actions taken, without explanation. During each Supreme Court term, the LII's Supreme Court collection includes a running list linking to these and other orders or actions taken without full opinion by the Court. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 11, 2005 at 07:52:10 PT
What Does This Mean?
Excerpt: Also Monday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in several cases, including Ashcroft v. Raich, where the court will decide whether people who smoke marijuana under doctor's orders are subject to a federal ban on marijuana. AP has more. Read the Court's full Order List [PDF].http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/062804pzor.pdfhttp://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2004/06/us-supreme-court-rules-that-foreign.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment