Marijuana.com

Zilos

GUESS which one of the following remarks -- all made by Supreme Court justices during last week's arguments about California's medical Marijuana law -- was uttered by the Supreme from the Golden State:

"Go to the FDA and say, 'Take this off the dangerous drugs list. ... Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum.'"

"Seems to me the sensible assumption is they're going to get it on the street."

"If we rule for the respondents in this case, do you think the street price of Marijuana would go up or down?"

Dude! Right the first time! It's Quote No. 3 from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Sacramento homey who owes Marijuana a big confirmation vote of thanks: He made it to the court because the nominee before him got dumped after admitting he'd smoked Marijuana.

This is California's second date with the Supreme Court on the subject of Cannabis Rx. The first time, after California led 10 other states in writing itself a prescription for medical Marijuana, the court unanimously folded its black-robed arms and said nope to medicinal dope when it was handed out at "cannabis clubs."

The matter is back for seconds because more medicinal marijuanists were busted, barely a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, by John Ashcroft's Justice Department, which evidently already had swiftly defeated terrorism and had some free time on its hands. The California women whose case was argued last week grew their own to counter ailments that could keep an entire medical school occupied.

The legalities at issue in the case are grounded in interstate commerce, but let's not kid ourselves. This case is really before the Supreme Court for one reason: Because, in spite of Quote No. 2 from Justice Stephen Breyer -- that regulation is better than referendum -- no politician and no regulator answerable to a politician has the guts to stick up publicly for the medical merits of Marijuana. Even if it ends world hunger, makes peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and sends the Cubs to the World Series, no politician will go there; the kiss-of-death risk of an endorsement by the Cheech and Chong Bong Club is too terrifying.

If the Puritan politicians suspect that some patient might be having a good time, one toke at a time, I offer this rebuttal: It is not fun. How do I know this? Because I have had glaucoma since I was in my teens, and some years ago, after every prescription drug failed and before I resorted to surgery, my doctor let me know obliquely that Marijuana could do me good. I dutifully inhaled almost every night. Taking drag after drag under doctor's order was a drag.

What is fun is watching how the cheerleaders for states' rights sort themselves out when the state's right in question makes their skin crawl. Ashcroft, the lame-duck attorney general, would conceivably be fine with it if you were dying of cancer in Oregon and killed yourself with an assault weapon, but he would lock you and your doctor up if the two of you tried, under Oregon state law, to find you a more peaceful and painless exit from life.

Fifty, 60 years after states' rights meant the right to segregate and discriminate, I think we're overdue for a Blue States Rights Revolt. It was Chief Justice William Rehnquist who 10 years ago made it clear that states' rights were the next civil rights; it's time to hold him to his word. He wasn't on the bench to hear the arguments. He is out ailing after being treated for thyroid cancer. He is also one of three of the justices to hail from states whose voters like the notion of medical Marijuana and one of several justices with medical problems.

Angel Raich, the Oakland woman whose case is one of those before the court, had Rehnquist on her mind last week at least as much as her case may be on his. The other day, on the steps outside the Supreme Court, she wondered aloud whether his suffering might "soften his heart about the issue." He might even find, she suggested, "that cannabis would help him a lot."

Patt Morrison is a Los Angeles Times columnist and frequent commentator on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition."

__________________
:: Posting Guidelines :: 420 Lounge :: Hemp Cultivation :: Myths :: Canadian Laws :: U.S. Laws :: Recipes ::

 

Unregistered

The point is that right wingers used states rights argument to justify there racism in attempting to avoid the effect of civil rights legislation. Now looking at Bush V. Gore, we find the SC overruled the Florida courts ordering a vote recount in 2000, which proves their support for states rights is only a convienence argument. Now with the med MJ case arguing for states rights the hypocracy will again be exposed when they rule against it.

Efficacy

"One of the few remaining effective weapons we have left is medical
use-- and at this point, we have compromised it by our over-reliance
on the pathos of the desperately ill who constitute but a small
fraction all pot users. In order to do so, we also have to appear to
agree that "recreational" users are criminals (and there is a
reliable way to distinguish them from 'real' patients). There are three serious problems with that formulation:

1) it's untrue
2) it's incoherent
3) it's a loser

WNB

Where did you see that quote in this thread??

Anyway, whoever said (or didn't say) that was right on. Medical marijuana as an issue concedes far too much ground to the prohibitionists. It's like asking the guy who just robbed your house for your dvd player back, but letting him keep everything else he took. Marijuana should be legal across the board, and taking any other stance is shooting the legalization movement in the foot by focussing on the wrong goals.

And before someone says that mmj will clear the way for full legalization, that is not true. No medicine has ever become accepted as a recreational substance. Further, arguing that it will clear the way for legalization is exactly what the prohibitionists want -- it makes the legalization movement look like it's exploiting sick people, and that is not good pr.

__________________
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Bluee

So, when's the next bus for Canada?

__________________
Pessimism is being content when things go bad, while enjoying life when proven wrong.

 

Arise -SWS-

Not true. Alcohol was used medicinally in cough syrups, people used to drink rum in order to clear up respitory problems, and it was used to sterilize wounds and surgical tools.

There is one, and only one halfway-valid health argument against Marijuana and that is inhaling its smoke will cause bronchitis-like symptoms to arise. I say halfway because as we all know, you can still eat it, vaporize it, and make extracts out of it- which I'd like to mention is a hell of a lot more versatile than most drugs on the market.

EDIT- Now that I think about it, Coca-Cola was a medicine back in the day, they used it as a cough syrup (when the name actually implied the main ingredient, my how times have changed).

interzone

The problem is that the right wingers and most left wingers realize that if they legalize marijuana in any aspect, it changes the entire economic outlook of this country. it makes all of us equal because most energy problems are solved for pennies. gas and oil are no longer dependancies. w3e can live free and forever. just ask the founding fathers. if it was not for "weed" this country would not be free. it saved us sduring the revolution and it saved our ass in WWII. If it were not for Pot we would still be british colonoies (do the research) YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE FOR CHEAPER WHE BUILT WITH MARIJUANA FIBER for A LOT LESS THAN WOOD, AND SAVE A FOREST OR TWO. you can build a car from it and power it with it. but the problem lies from the fact that it is so cheap that so much money can be generated to render money neutral and make us all equal. and we can't have that.

Unregistered

You know it might be best if the federal government has the last say about states rights in this. If these states end up rallying around legalizing efforts and possibly changing the prohibition era then what they are arguing now would force states, in time, like Utah (where I currently live) to accept national legalization, as in if you have a prescription you can pick up and use it nationally.
Besides I think that we have our eye off the prize. We should not accept legality for medical use only but instead push for full legalization, or at least for decimalization.
Lets let them win this one and use it to our purpose later.