Marijuana.com

Abomonog

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/14/sc....ap/index.html

I predicted here 6 months ago that any attempt to make MJ legal on a federal level through the normal channels would fail.

Sadly, once again I am correct. Our government will not relinquish it's stranglehold on the people unless it is forced too.

I again make a prediction: Any attempts to legalize on a federal level by vote will be quashed by our government for the exact same reasons the MJ initiative lost in court. What Congress says is law and that's that.

It is totally obvious that our government cares only for its own agenda and has no care at all for human life, or the constitution for that matter.

In the same post as my previous prediction I gave some very good ideas on how to force our government to accept legalization. These did entail some risk but also put our government in a do or risk death situation.

What I recieved in return was a bunch of people saying that MJ wasn't worth any risk for, especially your lives.

Well, to paraphrase Dr. Martin L. King: If you don't have a cause worth risking your life for than your life isn't worth living.

You all know what you have to do. It's just a matter of getting up the balls to do it. It's simply a matter of saying, "I have had enough, there will be no more injustice!" and sticking to that. As a group effort our government would be forced to legalize or take action against us as a mass. If they take action they risk falling. I'm willing to bet they wont take that risk. In fact I'll bet my life on it. Any takers?

I'll look around here late to see if people want exact details of what I have in mind.

In July, the obligatory MJ rally will be in DC, I'm sure. This is the perfect time and place to make a stand. Or this year, like last year, will you all stand around and watch your friends go to jail again? Hell they (The D.C. Police) even beat a reporter last year and practically no one helped. To me, this is cowardice. Is this what we are? A bunch of doped up cowards? Gee, I hope not. I would like to think that if I took a stand people would back me up and not run like small children from the boogeyman in the closet.

Well if nothing comes from this, See you when the next iniative fails. Maybe then you will be prepared to act. One can only hope.

 

awalkinthegrass

Abomonog, that was an elegantly written tirade that I cannot agree more strongly on.

However, there's a lot of talk in the media about how this is a "major setback" for us. But correct me if I am wrong, that's just not the way I feel. Am I insane?

Take a look at what happened. The Supreme Court interpreted a law that states that, since the drug is a Schedule I, it has no medicinal value.

How do you fight something as cut and dry as that? Where's there any room for interpretation on that one? So a unanimous decision can hardly be surprising.

SO WHAT.

We've been pushing all along not for roundabout, tricky little *interpretations* of laws that such, but for total law *reformation*. If Marijuana were rescheduled, then this entire case would have to be redecided BECAUSE THE LEGAL FOUNDATION UPON WHICH IT WAS MADE WILL HAVE CHANGED.

But that's what we've been fighting for all along, anyway!!!!

So what's the big deal??? Change the f-ing laws, and this ruling goes up in a cloud of smoke.

If anyone sees anything glaringly wrong about this, then Please... let me know. I am not a legal expert, I am just applying a layman's knowledge to the situation as best I can.

Niteshift, perhaps?

Thanks,

-Paul

Niteshift

I've said it all along.....change the law.

You're right.

Personally, I don't think this ruling is the serious blow some are making it out to be. It was a rather narrowly focussed issue.

It doesn't change my predictions: Med mj legal in 5 years, recreational within 10.

Slightly Stoopid

I don' t know Nighshift. I got to thinking, and i don't see how recreational marijuana will ever be possibal in the next decade or two. Unless a pro-pot politician makes some major head way, i just don't see it.

Here we are 80+ years since marijuana was made illegal, and it is still pretty much the same exept for a few decrims here and there. Do you really think we will get that far in 10 years??

__________________
Slightly Stoopid
"Before you knock it, try it first. You will learn that it is a blessing and not a curse"
-Ben Harper

Niteshift

I have to admit, this is a little funny to me............. Me convincing you that pot will be legalized in the next 10 years.

I don't have any hard evidence to base my opinion on, it's just a hunch.

 

mirage

im with niteshift here 5 for med 10 for rec

why, cause once a majority of teh states get the med mj up the feds will have to take the head out of the sand and start admiting stuff. its seems every year a few states wake up and join the wagon, were at what 20 sumpin. this will lead to the overall goal full legaliztion, once med mj is out there some anal types will start re thinking mj as a whole, its gonna be a slow process but at least it WILL happen in our lifetimes,i can wiat 10 more years to smoke legally.

Abomonog

We march on Capitol hill, we surround and fill it and we refuse to move untill the law is changed.
You have to now. See, what the court has done is provide local authorities an avenue to bust MJ Patients that they couldn't arrest as users, as dealers. With medical defense for distribution denied it will be expected that Medical MJ users will buy up large amounts of MJ, thus opening them up for posession w/intent to distribute charges. No medical defense for that charge.

Expect the buyers clubs to be largely ignored while the users go down on distribution charges.

The way I see it, don't expect legal anything untill the people start fighting back in Washington.

awalkinthegrass

>> We march on Capitol hill, we surround and fill it and we refuse to move untill the law is changed.

Well, the fire is definitely starting to burn hotter (pardon the pun) but hopefully it won't need to get to that point. Marijuana won't become decriminalized or legalized until the media picks it up and shows it in a positive light, and this isn't going to happen until the reality of our intent is painfully apparent... for example, when more than half the country has passed medical marijuana laws and legislators are really getting their arms bent to introduce decriminalization bills. No, the media is going to ignore this for a very long time, and that is just fine with the feds. So yes, we have to keep pushing, we have to continue to press onwards towards 'critical mass.'

Ten states with active medical marijuana laws on the books is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's more or less still a big question mark... the media isn't going to touch it until they're sure we're headed towards victory on the federal battleground.

>> You have to now. See, what the court has done is provide local authorities an avenue to bust MJ Patients that they couldn't arrest as users, as dealers.

The feds were always able to arrest users and dealers. The locals did it, but usually always outside the law. It was the feds that could act with impunity because they operated under federal law, which never recognized the legality of any kind of marijuana use or distro in the first place. We need to understand exactly what this case did. It did not empower local law enforcement, it only empowered the feds. The feds were always able to attack the co-ops, but they were hesitant to do so because if the 'medical necessity' defense were ruled by the Supreme Court to be a valid defense in federal court, then the co-ops would have been arrested, claimed medical necessity, and freed. But now, the feds have a green light; they can arrest the co-ops on a federal charge, and they know that the co-ops won't be able to defend themselves.

Of course, feds are going to encourage local law enforcement cooperation, because they need that assistance. But the bad guy here really is, and always has been the feds.

>> With medical defense for distribution denied it will be expected that Medical MJ users will buy up large amounts of MJ, thus opening them up for posession w/intent to distribute charges. No medical defense for that charge.

Maybe. When they can't get it in smaller doses frequently, they will buy larger doses less frequently and store it in a freezer or whatnot. More than likely, however, they will start to grow their own gardens under co-op supervision. This tactic has already been announced by the OCBC. Instead of selling, they're going to assist in growing.

>> Expect the buyers clubs to be largely ignored while the users go down on distribution charges.

I absolutely disagree. The feds don't have that kind of resources... remember, and I will say it again, that over 99% of drug charges in this country take place at the state and local level. When was the last time you knew ANYONE who got busted by a federal agent? It's rare. In taking this issue to the Supreme Court, they were targetting the big fish. They know they can't kill this weed, but they are going to do their best to keep chopping it's head off. The 'head' in this case was the OCBC; the root system, the users, are largely going to remain intact.

>> The way I see it, don't expect legal anything untill the people start fighting back in Washington.

Well, of course that's a given.

-Paul

awalkinthegrass

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/medicalmarijuana/

This bulletin from the Drug Reform Coordination Network is
issued today (5/16/01) for two purposes. First, in the
wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, which was not
favorable to the medical marijuana cause, it is more
important now than ever that individuals contact their
Representatives and Senators in Congress and demand that
medical marijuana be made legal under federal law, or that
at a minimum the federal government step out of the way in
states that have passed pro-medical marijuana laws.

Please visit our medical marijuana lobbying web site at
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/medicalmarijuana/ to send
free e-mail or faxes to your US Representative, your two US
Senators and the President, asking their support for H.R.
1344, the "States' Rights for Medical Marijuana Act." When
you are done with that, please use our web site's tell-a-
friend form or forward this bulletin to individuals and
appropriate online forums. Last but not least, please call
or visit your US Representative to ask him or her to
cosponsor H.R. 1344, as this will make more impact than
just sending an e-mail; you can reach your Reps via the
Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or look up
their direct DC and local numbers at http://www.house.gov.

Secondly, we wish to assure our supporters that despite the
highly negative spin that the media has put on the recent
US Supreme Court ruling, this ruling in no way sets back
the enormous progress that has been made on the medical
marijuana issue over the last several years. Though
unfavorable, the ruling is limited to one narrow legal
issue, whether providers of medical marijuana may raise a
medical necessity defense to the Controlled Substances Act
if charged in federal court.

The ruling has no effect on the numerous state laws that
have been passed to provide practical protection to medical
marijuana patients. All it means is that the federal
government can still move against medical marijuana
providers under federal law, if it chooses to do so.
However, the vast majority of drug enforcement occurs at
the state level, so the protections currently existing for
medical marijuana patients in states that have enacted them
are still in place, albeit incomplete without federal
legalization of medical marijuana.

Again, please contact your US Representative and your two
US Senators to ask their support on H.R. 1344 and medical
marijuana. Call (202) 224-3121 to reach them and visit
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/medicalmarijuana/ online.

If you are extra motivated, we suggest also writing a
letter to the editor pointing out how limited the
ramifications of the Supreme Court ruling really are. We
will be publishing information on this topic in the Week
Online this Friday morning, or visit the links page at
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/medicalmarijuana/ to find
other sources of information on this issue.

Thank you for standing up for justice and sanity.

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/medicalmarijuana/

-----------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe to DRCNet's weekly newsletter and action alert
list, visit http://www.drcnet.org and enter your name, e-
mail address and state in the "quick-signup form" to the
right. To signoff from DRCNet or change your subscription
address, send e-mail to listhelp@drcnet.org and specify
your request.

DRCNet needs your support! Please visit our registration
form at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html to make a
donation on our encryption-secured credit card form or
enter your name, address and pledge amount to print out and
send in with your contribution -- or just send checks or
money orders to: DRCNet, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC
20036, or call your credit card info in to (202) 293-8340.

willy

has it exactly right. This ruling was not unexpected. In fact my sense is the court is almost begging for someone(California?) to bring them a case that does go to constitutionality based on the 10th and other states rights interpretations.

Don't give up. Go to the links provided in the post by Walkinthegrass and get involved.

Thanks