Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Medical Marijuana Advocates Ask for Reform
Erica Werner | The Sacramento Union | 05/05/2005

WASHINGTON—With a key Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana pending, advocates pleaded with Congress on Wednesday to let patients use the drug without fear of federal prosecution.

“It is absolutely cruel that the federal government does not allow us the right to use this medicine,” said Angel Raich of Oakland, Calif., who began using marijuana to combat the pain of a brain tumor and filed the lawsuit that’s before the court.

“It is not easy for us patients that really need this medicine to come out here, to have to fight for our lives on this kind of level,” she said.

Raich was joined at a Capitol Hill news conference by talk show host Montel Williams, who said legal painkillers don’t help his multiple sclerosis, and by a bipartisan group of lawmakers who endorsed legislation allowing states to make their own rules on medical marijuana.

Ten states have laws that allow residents to use marijuana for medical purposes _ California, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Maine, Montana, Hawaii and Vermont.

Despite such laws, the Supreme Court refused four years ago to protect distributors of marijuana from federal anti-drug charges. Now justices are deliberating whether federal drug agents can go after patients in the states where the drug is allowed for medical purposes. That’s the case Raich and another California woman, Diane Monson, brought after federal agents confiscated marijuana plants from Monson’s yard.

A ruling could come as early as May 16, and while Raich and others hope it will be favorable they also want Congress to act. Past attempts to pass legislation allowing states to make their own medical marijuana laws have not succeeded, but five lawmakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum said Wednesday they’d keep trying.

“The notion that a state-sanctioned practice of medicine ought to be criminalized really makes no sense,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who said he was reintroducing the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.

Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said they would offer an amendment to a spending bill on the House floor to bar the Justice Department from using federal funds to prosecute medical marijuana use.

“It makes no sense at all to have the federal government overriding a vote of the people of a state on what should be criminalized and what shouldn’t be criminalized in terms of personal consumption,” Rohrabacher said.

Also supporting the legislative moves were Reps. Sam Farr, D-Calif., and Ron Paul, R-Texas.

“This is about access for people in pain,” Farr said.


Montel Urges Congress on Medical Marijuana
ABC News | 05/04/2005

WASHINGTON May 4, 2005 — Talk show host Montel Williams joined a group of medical marijuana advocates Wednesday in imploring Congress to allow him and other sick people to use the drug without fear of prosecution.

"This is really so simple it's ignorant," said Williams, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999. He said legal drugs do not help the pain.

"I'm hurting right now. I'm hurting. Why? Because I knew I had to come to Washington, D.C., and I can't carry anything because I know I'd get busted," he said.

Williams spoke at a Capitol Hill news conference where a bipartisan group of lawmakers said decisions about medical marijuana should be left to the states.

Ten states have laws that allow residents to use marijuana for medical purposes. The Supreme Court has said that does not protect distributors from federal anti-drug charges.

The court is considering a case about whether federal drug agents can go after patients in the states where the drug is allowed for medical purposes Alaska, California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Maine, Montana, Hawaii and Vermont.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he was reintroducing a bill that would allow states to set their own laws on medical marijuana.

"The notion that a state-sanctioned practice of medicine ought to be criminalized really makes no sense," Frank said.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

castklear

The ruling is about whether or not its commerce and crossing State lines for profit. The argument is only if the Federal Government has the right to control what I grow and consume in my own back yard. Don't expect to even hear the words "Medical Marijuana" in there decision.

If they give up the right to control drugs through the Commerce act it could lead to legalization outright....don't hold your breath except when toking.

RL in IL

Good insight... a lot is being written about it lately it seems.. a lot of people wish more could be done sooner... a lot of people's hopes are up that this could be a breakthrough to aid medical marijuana situations within states that are not grown for profit but strictly non-profit given to patients to help their illness.

It is so important that money not be made on marijuana when it comes to medical marijuana. That is about as compassionate as one can get and as far from the current system of illegal marijuana trafficking as one can get.



That is where the twist is. But you said drugs, not marijuana. Are you saying if the case is in favor of Raich, it is a decision not only in favor of marijuana for sick patients, but for other drugs as well? If this is the case, I don't expect a favorable decision for Raich.

If it would specifically only allow marijuana and nothing else, I could see it having a better chance at being passed.

So you're saying Ashcroft vs. Raich could potentially encompass drugs in general rather than marijuana specifically?

If so, I don't see a favorable ruling because one of the main reasons I always hear about people who are against those who are for marijuana, is that it is a back door for legalizing all drugs. That is never going to win. If it points specifically to marijuana, then there is a much greater chance.

It has to be a decision that will be favorable to marijuana only and extremely unfavorable to any other illegal drug.

That's the only way.

Buzzby

"Compassion Club" prices for marijuana are the same as black market prices. People are making a shîtload of money on "compassionate use" and that's one reason it's not being taken seriously. It leads people to think that medical marijuana is just a way for stoners and dealers to sidestep the law.

__________________

oppyeahuknowme

Gang,

The arguement before the supreme court is when can and when cannot the federal government step in, using the powers bestoed by the commerce clause, to control what is not commerce, argued by Raich, in light of a given specific class of activity.

Raich's arguement is that goods manufactured and used at home are out of reach of the "federal gov/commerce clause". Doesn't matter if that "good" is tomatoes, machine guns, quilts or herion. The states are left to regulate any activity outside the grasp of the feds. Sorry to disappoint you...anarchy IS NOT on the table.

The commerce clause, like all statues, has its limitations in granting power to the federal. It is unreasonable to assume that the feds have "unlimited power" in regulating commerce. This is a case where "the line in the sand" must be drawn.

What most hippy/pothead democrats don't understand is that Bush and his right wing nut-jobs are your best friend!
You put a few of Bush's judges on the stands and guess where we will be in twenty years? Let me elaborate...

I'm guessing many of you are democrats, but trust me that the conservative judges would restore states' rights and in turn do us all a favor. It, the conservative judges, would tare down the "New Deal" which is essientially what has struck down states' rights for the last sixty years. I'm no Republican, but I know a good thing when I see one.

Conservative judges will empower the states who in turn will then choose for themselves the medical marijuana issue. It's really confusing and what gets published in the papers doesn't help. You can't believe all the lies...which is all that's printed these days.

I know it sounds a$$-backwards to have someone like Bush helping lead the way for states to choose for themselves the medical marijuana issues, but that is what is happening behind the scenes. Sadly it's not obvious to the average layman.

Don't go thinkin' that Bush is pro-pot. He's not...unless he can make some money in the deal or his campaign contributors can. He's lookin' at the big picture. When the states have power that means "big profits". Cause what comes next is something more akin to "pure competition". Federally imposed wage minimums would be found unconstitutional. Next will be the elimination of social security. Soon after the federal labor laws would be found unconstitutional. Do I have to draw a picture?

Of course I'm game...cause once all hell breaks loose there will be an uprising. So, I say to hell with the filiabusters...bring on the revolution!

Opp