cannabisnews.com: The Sainted Clause










  The Sainted Clause

Posted by CN Staff on June 15, 2005 at 06:57:56 PT
By David Morris, AlterNet 
Source: AlterNet 

USA -- The most sobering aspect of the recent Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana was that it was essentially a decision made by progressives and, on the whole, supported by progressives. Don't they understand that this could not be a worse historical moment to grant the White House and Congress expanded authority to criminalize individual behavior?The case hinged on whether the feds have the right to literally invade the backyards of two California women and arrest them for using homegrown marijuana even though their actions are legal in California. The Bush Administration argued that it does, because the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate "Commerce...among the several States."
For almost 70 years, progressives have used the interstate commerce clause to justify extending the federal reach. Since all commercial actions in modern economies involve interstate commerce, they argue, all commercial behavior is Constitutionally subject to federal jurisdiction. That is why Lester Maddox had to serve blacks at his family owned fried chicken restaurant. His supplies crossed state lines. The federal Civil Rights Act applied.In the 1990s, the Supreme Court began to circumscribe the federal reach. In 1995, it overturned a 1990 federal law criminalizing the possession of guns near schools. The Court noted that possession in and of itself is not a commercial transaction and overturned "a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms." The Court argued that the Constitution would not tolerate reasoning that would "convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States."Later the Court relied on the same reasoning to overturn portions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. That Act created a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. The Court concluded that this was not an economic activity.In the medical marijuana case, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that these precedents were not determinative. Four liberal justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Shouter and Stevens) were joined by two conservatives, Scalia and Kennedy.While the possession of a gun is not in and of itself a commercial activity, the possession of marijuana is. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens, at the outset, expressed his sympathy with the hundreds of thousands of people who "will suffer irreparable harm." The majority agreed that marijuana helped alleviate the defendants' excruciating pain as determined by their physicians. The majority agreed that the marijuana consumed was not purchased or sold and that all of the supplies used in growing it came from inside California. They also agreed that the citizens of California, by a wide margin, voted to approve the use of marijuana for medical purposes.Yet they decided that in this instance, the federal will was determinative. While possession of a gun was not a commercial activity, possession of marijuana was. And although no part of the transactions involved crossed state lines, the impact of allowing people to grow their own medicine would inevitably undermine Congress' desire to stop them from doing so.Sandra Day O'Connor, who had voted with the majority to restrict the right of the federal government to implement the Violence Against Women Act, spoke out vigorously against the majority's refusal to follow its own precedent. She noted that Court was establishing a very dangerous precedent. It was creating a federal police power. The right to criminalize behavior has traditionally rested with the states.As O'Connor noted, "The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens."Progressive politicians were palpably unwilling to speak out about the Court's decision. I'm unclear why. Last July, on a vote in the House of Representatives barring the federal government from sending police into states that allow medical marijuana, two thirds of the Democratic Party voted to limit federal intervention; 90 percent of the Republican Party voted to allow it. With nine states having passed medical marijuana legislation -- all but one by a direct vote of its citizens -- one would think the Democratic Party would want the voters to know which side it is on.But progressives have a problem. Despite the hardship and pain and even deaths that will result from aggressive federal actions against medical marijuana, progressives believe that a higher principle is involved. They believe in big government. The Los Angeles Times declared, "If this editorial board were Congress, we would enact a law allowing marijuana to be used for legitimate medical purposes...But we are not Congress--and neither is the Supreme Court. So we cannot be terribly offended by Monday's ruling, however much needless suffering it may causes."Why? "Given how many policies this page has happily urged the federal government to impose on...well, Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina, if not California, that clearly means supporting the court's decision."The New York Times echoed the sentiments of its West Coast counterpart. "We read the Supreme Court's decision on the medicinal use of marijuana with mixed emotions." The Times opposes the use of federal agents to arrest people for using medical marijuana in states that allow it. "But we take very seriously the court's concern about protecting the Commerce Clause, the vital constitutional principle that has allowed the federal government to thwart evils like child labor and segregation."Both newspapers are willing to condemn hundreds of thousands, even millions of people to "needless suffering" in order to defend the right of the federal government to ban child labor or require restaurants to serve all races. In my judgment, such a tradeoff is unnecessary. In the medical marijuana case, Congress criminalized individual behavior that is legal at the state level and does not involve interstate commerce or indeed, commerce at all. Stripping Congress of this right would not condemn America to regress back into its dark past.The Bush Administration has demonstrated a willingness, even an eagerness, to arrest people for their non-commercial behavior. This is the moment where we need to demand that our states defend us against this encroaching tyranny. Progressives know that is right. Moreover, they know it is a winning political issue. The only thing paralyzing them is their near-worship of the magic of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Court's medical marijuana decision should force them to reexamine that devotion. David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.Source: AlterNet (US)Author: David Morris, AlterNetPublished: June 15, 2005Copyright: 2005 Independent Media InstituteContact: letters alternet.org Website: http://www.alternet.org/DL: http://alternet.org/story/22221/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmFallout of Marijuana Verdicthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20800.shtmlCourt Rules Against Pot for Sick Peoplehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20774.shtmlMedical Marijuana Effort Loses at US High Court http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20772.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #62 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 14:18:21 PT
John Wayne
Things will change...we gain a little more ground every day!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by john wayne on June 15, 2005 at 14:10:59 PT
clear as mud
> Progressive politicians were palpably unwilling to speak out about the Court's decision. I'm unclear why.Let me clear it up for you, David. Because "progressive" politicians take the same luxury vacations, attend the same cozy banquets, and take in the same vast amount of campaign contributions from the mega-billion $$$ pharmaceutical industry as all other politicians. Nancy Pelosi giving a pro-MJ speech in the House? Only because she has a constituency that is 85% pro-med MJ and she KNOWS that there's no way the pro-med-cannabis measure will pass. And the pharmaceutical regime continues to blight the country. No one will stop them. Count on it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2005 at 13:25:45 PT:
A Founding Father saw this coming 200 years ago
Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence (and, never forget, risked being executed as a traitor as so many signatories who were caught were) said:UNLESS WE PUT MEDICAL FREEDOM INTO THE CONSTITUTION, THE TIME WILL COME WHEN MEDICINE WILL ORGANIZE INTO AN UNDERCOVER DICTATORSHIP . . . TO RESTRICT THE ART OF HEALING TO ONE CLASS OF MEN, AND DENY EQUAL PRIVILEGE TO OTHERS, WILL BE TO CONSTITUTE THE BASTILLE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE. ALL SUCH LAWS ARE UN-AMERICAN AND DESPOTIC AND HAVE NO PLACE IN A REPUBLIC . . . THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS REPUBLIC SHOULD MAKE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM." Sadly, his words were ignored...and today people are forced to fight the armies of zealotry, bigotry and ignorance within and from withour their own government to alleviate the suffering of society's weakest members.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 13:04:27 PT
Related Article: Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi on Pot: Leave It To StatesJune 15, 2005House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke today on the House floor in favor of an amendment offered by Congressmen Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) that would permit the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation."In my district of San Francisco, we have lost more than 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering that accompanies this dreadful disease," Pelosi remarked. "Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting syndrome, and nausea."Pelosi has been an ardent defender of medical marijuana and was a co-sponsor of a 1998 bill that would have ended federal restrictions on the medical uses of pot, and move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II drug. "We must not make criminals of seriously ill people," she added. "It is not a crime to be ill and to need to have access to pain relief."Her remarks follow."Mr. Speaker, this amendment is especially timely, coming on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last week in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court's decision makes clear that federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed, and I strongly support Mr. Frank's proposed legislation that would change federal law to permit medical marijuana, pursuant to state law. "My colleagues, make sure you know that what we are talking about here is in regard to states passing their own laws or initiatives. What would happen with this initiative, which is needed because we don't have a federal law to respect states rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana, is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a states' rights issue."I've been a long-standing advocate for allowing states to make medical marijuana available to patients under a doctor's recommendation to alleviate painful suffering. A doctor's prescription is needed for a substance that is not otherwise legal. Doctors write prescriptions every day for that purpose, and they should be able to do so if their states allow it, in the case of medical marijuana."In my district of San Francisco, we have lost more than 20,000 people to AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering that accompanies this dreadful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting syndrome, and nausea. This is not confined to AIDS, but also cancer and other examples that our colleagues will point out. This is the compassionate way to go. "The previous speaker said he knows of no scientific or medical institution that has said anything positive about this, and I beg to differ. "This fact has been supported by science. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study found that medical marijuana 'would be advantageous' in the treatment of some diseases, and is 'potentially effective' in treating pain. Medical journals and other recent articles attest to the fact that active components in medical marijuana inhibit pain."Other proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions. "That is why many medical associations support legal access to medical marijuana, again if the state allows it with a doctor's permission, including the American Academy of HIV Medicine, American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the AIDS Action Council. "In addition, more than 10 states, including my home state of California, have adopted medical marijuana laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by a vote of the people. Numerous polls indicate that three-fourths of Americans support the right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. "A recent AARP Poll shows that 72 percent of America's seniors support the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor's prescription in the states which it is allowed."Religious denominations also support legal access to medical marijuana, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church. "We must not make criminals of seriously ill people. It is not a crime to be ill and to need to have access to pain relief. People who seek this therapy should be able to receive it. It is long past time for us to base our policies on science, not misguided politics."The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment affects the health and well-being of so many Americans, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it."Copyright: 2005 Raw Story Media, Inc.http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Pelosi_on_pot_Leave_it_to__0615.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2005 at 12:58:35 PT:
As to WHY we should do so
Very simply this: they expect us to dry up and blow away. They expect us to be easily waved off with heads bowed and bloodied, dismissing us as children.Let them hear your anger (no threats save the one of working against them come election day). Let them know what you think of those who sanction the further suffering of the sick and dying. If they start getting calls that say "We...*will*...be...BACK." they'll realize we won't stop until this passes. With or without their help.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2005 at 12:52:17 PT:
Time for the flaming to begin
Call your Rep's offices ASAP and try to find out who voted for it...and praise the ones who did to the heavens. And for those who voted against the amendment? Give them the news of your switching parties and working for the opposition to move their sorry arses out of the office if they did. LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE NOT AMUSED. Then let's see who laughs last.Like I keep saying, we have the numbers. If many of us called before, TWICE as many should call now. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 12:39:05 PT
News Brief from The AP
Medical Marijuana Proponents Lose House Vote 
  
 June 15, 2005CAPITOL HILL -- The House has easily rejected an effort to circumvent last week's Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana.The court ruled last week that federal drug laws trump state medical marijuana statutes. That means federal authorities could prosecute people who smoke marijuana for pain relief on the advice of their doctors.Foes of the ruling wanted to keep federal authorities from doing so. But by a vote of 264-to-161, the House rejected that effort.One supporter of the measure warned that the Supreme Court ruling would let the government "bust old ladies who are suffering from pain" and who use marijuana to ease that pain.Opponents argued that marijuana leads to the use of more serious drugs.The outcome was expected. The measure had been defeated by similar margins in the past two years.Copyright: 2005 Associated Press
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 12:35:41 PT
Press Release from Drug Free America Foundation
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=48887
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by Hope on June 15, 2005 at 12:27:05 PT
Injustice, for the moment, prevails.
Look how long it took to overcome the obvious injustice of slavery and many other injustices that were once accepted and endured as the status quo for a lot longer than this destructive prohibition has gone on. I'm very thankful for those people who stood up in the past to injustice. Someday, someone will be thankful for us, too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by PainWithNoInsurance on June 15, 2005 at 12:00:58 PT
That was no supprise
Ok, so what, the federal dictator won. The laughing in the background while the MMJ votes were being cast disturbed me. It was like propaganda saying let's turn this nation into a reefer madness laughing party. I would like to know who was doing the laughing while this compassionate vote was being cast.Laugh at the less fortunate will you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:57:22 PT
Well We Didn't Win
I wish our elected officials cared about the people's opinion instead of special interests. What's next?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:54:19 PT
MikeC
You're welcome. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 11:50:53 PT
Ooops..
Thank you
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:49:27 PT
MikeC
I wanted to mention to you that don't need to put your e-mail address in to post. Most people don't for security reasons. We only need an e-mail for registration purposes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:34:22 PT
One More Comment
So far not one call that is negative!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 11:31:57 PT:
It makes me mad...
That a handful people can overrule what 80% of the country wants!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:28:50 PT
Current Caller
That Cannabis could help people off of Meth!I agree! Good point!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 11:25:16 PT:
Thanks everybody!
I appreciate it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by GreenJoy on June 15, 2005 at 11:21:08 PT
What were dealing with
 Hello Mike C. I had a tour thru the system too. Glad you came out right side up! We are dealing with the $$. If and when the $$ are so overwhelmingly on our side.. then compassion and reason and truth and justice and common sense will follow.
 
 It is impossible to reason with a sick mind. (Souderpuss)
      
              GJ
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by VitaminT on June 15, 2005 at 11:17:01 PT
c-span
Rep. Hinchey will be speaking in a few minutes
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by PainWithNoInsurance on June 15, 2005 at 11:13:57 PT
MikeC
I am sorry for what they did to you; I had a similar situation and had a crowd of creeps enter my home for two seedlings.It sure would be a different story if souder and his human life dictators had a health problem. I noticed he was all for marinol because it is from a pharm company. I think he will be a backer of Sativex for the same reason even though it is the same as raw weed, but it is from a pharm company. The SENATE is being called the millionares club because of all of the news coming out about lobbying groups paying for senator's trips and things. This is why America is no longer a democracy.Greenspan has recently said that the gap between the rich and poor in this country is wider than ever and is not indicative of a demacratic society.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Hope on June 15, 2005 at 11:12:05 PT
MikeC...I'm so very sorry.
I truly am. It literally makes me sick every time I hear of that happening to people.I'm thankful and glad your spirit has survived and is fighting the injustice done to you and yours.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:08:56 PT
Oh and I'm Upset With Kerry Too
I'm being perfectly honest. As much as I was heart broken when Kerry lost in his e-mails I get he hasn't mentioned medical marijuana once just kids and medical. What about adults that need medical coverage too?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 11:07:47 PT:
We still have 11 states with MM laws...
We had nothing to lose and every day we gain more ground...I really believe that within a few short years this will all be over. Their same old tired arguments are crumbling.This might be a silly question but why don't all the big pro-cannabis groups (MPP, DPA, NORML, etc.) join forces and build one large voice? There are literally hundreds of pro cannabis groups out there....strength in numbers?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:06:37 PT
Hope
I know what you mean. This is why I have such a hard time with politics. Dennis Kucinich was just getting fired up and it was over. Why do they do that?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Hope on June 15, 2005 at 11:04:06 PT
"Remember who we are dealing with."
Would that be the living dead?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 11:02:53 PT
MikeC 
I'm really sorry that happened to you. We have other people here on CNews who have had similar problems. Hang in there. We are really trying to bring change. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Hope on June 15, 2005 at 11:02:14 PT
FoM
I heard it that way, too. It also sounded like extremely few voted or were even there. Sounded like maybe three to three!It is disconcerting the depth of the virtually immovable sludge we are having to wade through to get to freedom.I fear that a lot of reps will avoid voting at all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Taylor121 on June 15, 2005 at 11:01:20 PT
I meant a recorded vote
 Hinchey will get a recorded vote I believe soon based on what they have on the house website.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Taylor121 on June 15, 2005 at 11:00:07 PT
From the U.S. House Websites
M. - 
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Hinchey amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Hinchey demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the legislative day. http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.htmlHinchey will most likely get a voice vote soon. Don't count on it passing, do not get your hopes up. We are looking at pikcing up maybe 10 votes if we are lucky. Remember who we are dealing with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 10:55:20 PT:
We'll see
What hurts is that we clearly blew them out of the water in this debate...same old tired b.s. More people in treatment? Of course there are because of the current drug court setup..it's either treatment or jail! I know..two years ago my home was raided but a drug task force for two plants in my backyard. It was really a shame to have my young children seeing these thugs come uninvited into our home guns drawn! I could go on and on about how angry I am and all the counselors and county agents I was forced to speak to. They all want you to feel like a worthless human being..threatened to have my kids removed from the home...Narcotics Anonymous three nights a week...I'll end it there but it was hell...now I fighting mad and will do whatever I can to end this madness!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:54:53 PT
Hope
I believe Ron Paul is sincere. He's a good person I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:53:23 PT
A Vote?
There were as many that said yes as said no!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Hope on June 15, 2005 at 10:53:09 PT
Gads! 
They irk me to the soul with all their "Freedom" and "Liberty" talk. Most of them don't mean a word of it.Eighty percent it seems of the people we call our leaders are exceedingly ignorant and at the same time, bare faced liars.It's very disturbing.I believe Ron Paul means "Liberty" and means "Freedom" when he says it...but I seriously doubt the veracity of a great majority of the rest of them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:51:10 PT
PainWithNoInsurance
I hope they will vote. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by PainWithNoInsurance on June 15, 2005 at 10:48:48 PT
What comes next?
The voice vote is that the nays have it. Do they vote again?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:44:22 PT
I Agree It's The Republicans
I would never vote for a republican after what I have seen them do to our issue. At least democrats seem to care and caring politicians mean something to me and should mean something to god fearing people. I am not a democrat either. Actually I probably won't vote ever again.PS: There are a very small number of compassionate republicans and I thought I should give credit where credit is do.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Taylor121 on June 15, 2005 at 10:43:48 PT
From Drug WarRant Hinchey Debate
12:56 pm Eastern: Here it is!Hinchey is giving the intro, detailing how marijuana actually helps sick people and yet the DEA has been targeting them. Unconsionable for us to deny this just because "narrow ideological bias against that drug in Congress." Quotes Institute of Medicine Report. Quotes Stevens from Supreme Court about the Democratic process "may one day be heard in the halls of Congress". Lays into opponents. Does not legalize marijuana, etc. Medical organizations.... He's ripping through a whole bunch of points. Very well done.Our amendment is about compassion. Taxpayers' dollars should not be spent on sending patients to jail. It's about states rights and compassion. Peterson (PA) on the other side: Marijuana is not harmless. There's Marinol. There hasn't been enough testing. Marijuana use curtails the development of the brain. Blah, blah, blah. Same old stuff. Encouraging young people to use marijuana. He has friends who grew up with marijuana "was the hot issue" and they became "somewhat dull and have stayed that way their entire life." (Peterson seems a bit dull to me). Marijuana is not needed in this country. It should not become legal in any way in my view. Sanders (our side): Makes nice dig about not disagreeing with the capacity of Peterson's friends. Then says that most of Peterson's points were irrelevant. "Let's not decide on a political basis that no state is competent to regulate the practice of medicine in that state." [Remember, that all of this is very quickly typed on the fly so wait for exact quotes from the transcripts]. Let's leave it to the states and not pretend to be doctors by playing them on C-Span. Steve King (Iowa): Does the whole FDA approval thing. Then says it's about slipping the camel's nose under the tent, so that those who want to can eventually legalize marijuana. All sorts of medical organizations have rejected medical marijuana. It's just a social agenda to legalize. And this society will be more replete with this hallucinogenic drug and will lead to others. Nancy Pelosi - [nice to see the Minority Leader showing up for this.] Says that it's about compassion. Says nice things about the committee leaders. Says this amendment is timely coming after the Supreme Court decision. Make sure you know that what we are talking about here is states passing their own laws and initiatives. Emphasizes that a doctor's prescription is needed. They should be able to do so if their states allow it. We've lost 20,000 people to AIDS in my district and I've seen personally how medical marijuana has helped these people directly with wasting syndrome, etc. And it's not just AIDS. Begs to differ about lack of support by science. Notes the IOM report (quotes from it). Mentions other medical journals and how medical marijuana inhibit pain, improves quality of life, etc. Many medical associations support with doctors prescription under state law. Lists a number of such organizations. 92% of American's seniors support this (recent AARP poll) Lists a number of church organizations that support this -- impressive list. "We must not make criminals of criminally ill people -- slip of the tongue -- seriously ill people." [Nicely done.] Souder [Oh, boy.] this is a pro-marijuana effort ... dangerous drug ...shysters and quack... carbolic smoke ball promised to cure everything and snake oil [brings out old ads to show these old horrow show items] They made people drunk, just like marijuana makes you high. Brings up the Irma Perez story again. [I swear I'm going to burst if he does this again to this young girl -- I'll blow up about it later] Linked to heart disease, lung cancer, suicide, mental illness.. dangerous... more than 400 chemicals.. It's used for recreational reasons, not really for medical purposes. Doctors prescribe to everyone. Marijuana coffee houses. People growing tens of acres and hiding behind medical marijuana. Supporters exploit sick people. It's not proven, not true., etc. Marinol has been approved. Marinol is great, etc., etc. Proponents are perpetuating a fraud saying that home-grown pot, reefer, weed, etc..... [Aaaarrgghhhh.....] Rohrabacher: Says it should be about states. He thinks that the drug may well be harmful, and many other drugs may be harmful, but we empower doctors to make those decisions and we trust them to make those decisions. But simply to override all the powers of the people of the states is unconstiitutional. Our founding fathers wanted these decisions to be done in the states. The only thing we're deciding here is should we use federal money to override these decisions in the states? Let's not have a power grab in the federal government.Wolf: Opposed. Interferes with law enforcement. More young people are in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or any other drugs [same old nonsense from ONDCP] Sends wrong message to children. Confusing and wrong message. Farr (CA): (co-sponsor) It has not been a problem in California. It does not get drugs in the hands of kids. It doesn't hurt law enforcement. Supreme court didn't strike down those laws. This is about whether Congress will step in and prevent states from relieving pain. Don't bust old ladies. Gallegly (CA) [should be recalled by his constituents] Someone who smokes 5 joints per week may be taking in as much cancer-causing chemicals as pack of cigarettes a day. Woolsey (CA) I believe Doctors should be allowed to prescribe marijuana for their patients. My mother suffered from Glaucoma, and marijuana relieved her greatly. She's gone now, but I'm certain I'm speaking for her today in asking that others be allowed... Blumenauer (OR) Teen use of marijuana since the approval of medical marijuana by the state of California has gone down. Shows charts. It is outrageous that the federal government would intervene where states like mine are taking these steps. [mentions death with dignity in Oregon] Kucinich (OH) - support - Trying to raise marijuan to some sort of boogey-man when we have people suffering and we're going to deny that to them? Because of some shibboleth about marijuana? DeFazio (OR) Are we for states' rights or not? I guess not if we disagree with what the states say. It's not about legalization. This is something that should be made available in a compassionate way... Lofgren (CA) I oppose legalizing marijuana but support this amendment. Gave an example of someone who was relieved by marijuana but had to go out and buy it illegally -- why should we force cancer patients to do that? I cannot understand why we would interfere with their ability to get help. Jackson-Lee (TX) support - I ask kindness, respect and love for those who are suffering. Allow this to go forward so we can help the dying and allow the 10th amendment so states can do what they wish. Hinchey: Opponents have shown 19th century arguments for 21st century issues. This Congress says to those 10 states "I'm sorry but you can't do it." This Congress should be about relieving pain, not based on 19th century prejudices, biases. Let's pass this amendmenet [his time expired] Wolf: Accuses Hinchey of being inflammatory. [Right.] Souder: Getting high is the same as getting smashed. Starts listing other drugs that can help. Physicians shouldn't be making up FDA law. This is, in fact, asking to repeal the FDA. This isn't about states' rights - it's about the states over-riding the federal government, which they can. It's a bogus debate. Nobody's going after individual doctors [really?] - we're going after those big marijuana plantations with signs up in front saying this is medical. We're not buying into the college dorm viewpoint that this is somehow medical. We've seen the vote decline here in the last few years and we'll see it decline even more this year. [time ended].Now we just have to wait for the vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Hope on June 15, 2005 at 10:43:43 PT
Hello, Mike. Glad you're speaking with us.
The vote sounded to me like everyone had gone to lunch. I feared that when I heard what sounded like a mass exit of the forum area before the arguments had ended.I also thought the ayes sounded just as strong or stronger than the nays.Most people probably left the building to avoid voting. Now I hope they will and they will do what a democracy is supposed to do...listen to the will of the people.Prohibitionists are self-righteous busy bodies that get their kicks forcing other people to their personal will.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 10:38:55 PT:
Sadly...
I doubt that we'll win this one today...too many republicans against us. I'd like to see a strong showing though.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #22 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 10:36:45 PT:

Oh yeah...
Hello everyone! I am brand new here...been lurking for a few years. This is the best site for the latest cannbis news out there.My name is Mike. I live in Wisconsin.p.s. I hate Souder
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:36:41 PT

FDA and DEA
Souder talks about the FDA again. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug so how can they study it until the DEA changes the Schedule to at least II with cocaine!Stop the spin!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:33:51 PT

The GCW
Yes Dennis Kucinich!!!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by The GCW on June 15, 2005 at 10:32:56 PT

Dennis???
Kucinich?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:32:43 PT

MikeC
It's because it is made by Big Pharm I believe.Money! Money! Money!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 10:30:04 PT:

Hmmm...
Why do all these prohibitionists who claim that cannabis has no medical value always recommend Marinol?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 10:27:40 PT:

Souder
I didn't hear him tell how he destroys the futures of college students who get caught with a joint.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:27:24 PT

Go Dennis!
Yes we need compassion!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:24:03 PT

Favorite Christmas Present
A tin of marijuana!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on June 15, 2005 at 10:23:48 PT

siege,
Hemp seed oil has gamma linolenic acid, also.Hemp seed oil, from the seed...Our bodies produce GLA, but otherwise, GLA is only available in 5 obscure places.Black current seed oil, red primrose oil, borage, hemp seed oil and mother's milk.GLA is thought to contribute to a strong immune system.The daily recommended amount of Hemp seed oil, only supplies about 4% of Our daily GLA needs.Exterminating hemp off earth would reduce the avaiabality to obtain GLA.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:20:06 PT

The Children! The Children!
This isn't about children. People are in treatment because it's court ordered. It's Jail or Treatment.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:16:24 PT

Souder
I don't understand why he hates Cannabis like he does!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by siege on June 15, 2005 at 10:13:37 PT

HEMP SEED: the govt don't want us to know
 (nutritional foods or substances which prevent disease)
 
 The Chinese enjoy snacks of roasted seeds and in South Africa babies are weaned on a hemp "Pablum". In fact, the medicinal properties of hemp seeds in ancient Chinese pharmacopoeia are substantial. No other single plant source can compare with the nutritional value. Both the complete protein and the essential oils contained in hemp seed are in ideal ratios for human nutrition. Hemp seeds have an established place in history as a nourishing and delicious food. Cultures from around the world have their local recipes. Russians make porridge, sweets and a delicious butter said to be superior to peanut butter. 
HIGH FIBRE - little "colon cleansers"
Although little has been written about the fibre content of hemp seeds in North America they continue to be the most popular remedy for constipation and hemorrhoids in China. IDEAL VEGETABLE PROTEIN!
A pound of hemp seed would provide all the protein, essential fatty acids and dietary fiber necessary for human survival for two weeks. The protein in hemp contains all eight amino acids essential to life and is easily digested. For this reason it is used in many parts of the world for treating rnalnourishment.DANGERS of "low fat" and "no fat"
Recent trends to produce "low fat" and "no fat" foods present untimely dangers to human biology. In an effort to reduce the intake of saturated fats which typically provide little nutritional benefit and are attributed to excess weight gain, food manufacturers are producing products that contain no source of essential fatty acids. An ideal fat source needs to contain a balance of essential fatty acids (EFAs). They are known as Omega-3 or alpha linoleic acid and Omega-6 or linoleic acid. Hemp foods and hemp oil will be at the head of the "good fat" line, since they contain 80% EFAs. Fats and oils provide a carrier for the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, B and K. They also produce energy. As the trend towards "nutraceuticals" (nutritional foods or substances which prevent disease) continues, the increasingly sophisticated consumer will turn to hemp seed.
 
Nutritional Analysis of Hemp Seeds
Protein 22.5%
Carbohydrates 35.8%
Moisture 5.7%
Ash 5.9%
Calories 503 per 100g
Dietary fiber 35.1% (3.0% soluble)
Fat 30%Essential Fatty Acid ProfileOmega-3 (Alpha Linolenic) 20%
Omega-6 (Linoleic) 57%
Omega-9 (Oleic) 12%
Stearic 2%
Palmitic 6%
Carotene (Vit A) 16,800 IU per pound
Thiamine (B1) .9mg/100g
Riboflavin (B2) 1.1mg/100g
Pyridoxine (B6) .3mg/100g
Niacin (B3) 2.5mg/100g
Vitamin C 1.4mg/100g
Vitamin D 100 IU/100g
Vitamin E 3 mg/100gESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS
EFAs absorb sunlight and keep membranes fluid. Their tendency to disperse gives biological systems the power to carry substances such as toxins to the surface of the skin, intestinal tract, kidneys, or lungs, where these substances can be discarded.
EFAs absorb sunlight and keep membranes fluid. Their tendency to disperse gives biological systems the power to carry substances such as toxins to the surface of the skin, intestinal tract, kidneys, or lungs, where these substances can be discarded.EFAs are involved in producing life energy in our body from food substances, and moving that energy throughout our systems. They govern growth, vitality, and mental state. They hook up oxygen, electron transport, and energy in the process of oxidation. Oxidation, the central and most important moment-to-moment living process in our body, is the 'burning' of food to produce the energy required for life processes. EFAs are involved in the transporting of oxygen to all our cells. EFAs can be likened to oxygen 'magnets' that pull oxygen into our body. Linoleic Acid and Linolenic Acid appear to hold oxygen in our cell membranes, where it acts as a barrier to viruses, fungi and bacteria.EFAs substantially shorten the time required for fatigued muscles to recover after exercise. They facilitate the conversion of lactic acid to water and carbon dioxide. This is especially important to athletes.EFAs increase metabolic rates. They increase the metabolic rate and burn more fat into carbon dioxide, water and energy sometimes resulting in weight loss.Linolenic Acid and its derivatives can lower cholesterol hy up to 65%. It also produces smooth, velvety skin, increases stamina, speeds healing, increases vitality, and brings a feeling of calmness. It reduces inflammation, water retention, platelet stickiness, and blood pressure. It also inhibits the growth of tumors and enhances some immune functions, reduces the pain and swelling of arthritis, and completely reverses premenstrual syndrome in some cases. It has been known to kill malaria and has been used successfully to treat bacterial infections."This article is excerpted from: Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill, Udo Erasmus, © Alive Books, December 1993.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by MikeC on June 15, 2005 at 10:12:56 PT:

Souder
I know that hate is a strong word.....but I HATE this man.
Cold cold man. Nothing but lies...clearly obvious. UGH!!!!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 10:01:10 PT

Barney Frank
I just love him! Thank You So Much Mr. Frank!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 09:52:42 PT

It's On Now!
I hope it goes well!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 08:52:01 PT

Just a Comment
I hope our issue comes up soon. Watching C-Span is really hard for me. I'm afraid to change the channel or mute the sound for fear of missing it.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by ekim on June 15, 2005 at 07:42:54 PT

thanks ezrydn
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 07:38:32 PT

Heads Up: C-Span
They just said they will be debating Medical Marijuana for 30 minutes!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on June 15, 2005 at 07:31:14 PT:

Unrelated: When it rains, it pours
This is unrelated to the above article, but it is something that I have been ranting about for years: What we are REALLY teaching children in schools with urine testing?An F for school drug tests By John R. Knight and Sharon Levy http://tinyurl.com/d3kezFrom the article: 
*We are also concerned about the effects of this potential invasion of an adolescent's privacy. Some students will sit in class studying our constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure and then be compelled to produce a urine specimen against their will. What is the lesson here?*When the presently strong are weakened by age and infirmity, and the presently weak are, in the fullness of time, strong and politically powerful, then what will happen to those who taught our children that rights are the playthings of the strong, not the protection of the weak, to be overturned with a whim? (Hat tip to Nikos A. Leverenz   D'Alliance http://blog.drugpolicy.org/ for the link.)

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on June 15, 2005 at 07:18:02 PT

Supreme Illogic
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20859.shtml#11
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 15, 2005 at 07:12:21 PT

SFC Editorial: Just Say Yes To Medical Pot
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 
 The Bush administration's ongoing crusade against medical marijuana has been a misguided waste of government resources. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that the federal government has the power to prosecute patients who legally light up in a number of states, Congress has a chance to show its leadership and legalize medical pot for patients with debilitating illnesses without fear of going to jail. That test will come today, when members of Congress are scheduled to vote on an amendment that would prevent the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute medical-marijuana patients in states where such use has been declared legal. The bipartisan Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment is a good- faith effort to bridge the sizable gap between states' rights and federal authority on certain medical issues. Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/15/EDG3VD83NU1.DTL
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment