awalkinthegrass

First of all, I want to give a disclaimer that this is entirely opinionated and could be off-base.

First, I'm going to ask this question: Is anyone surprised?

The only reason the DoJ brought this to the Supreme Court is because they were confident they would win with the current panel. These justices voted against a recount in Florida, for God's sake.

And where does this leave us? More or less, the same place we were before. While it removes the Cooperatives' last defense against the Federal shutdown attack, this really was more or less a stalling effort. So yes, the Cooperative is gone.

But what exactly was the Cooperative?

It was a large, organized group of distributors. So, great. What the brilliant Department of Justice has just done is blown a huge entity apart into smaller pieces. Jeff Jones himself said that he was going to go underground if this happened. And an underground railroad that's blown apart from the macro level of a business to the micro level of the individual or pockets of individuals is basically a death knell for federal prosecution. The feds won't prosecute the little guy; they don't have the resources and I doubt they're going to have too much cooperation from California.

The Cooperative in Oakland was run discreetly, supported by the local government, even by local law enforcement in general. As far as I am concerned, all this has done is pissed Oakland off. There will be a flurry of intense paranoia, then everything will relax, and then people will start poking their heads out of the foxholes and forming alliances. There will be stronger galvanization than there ever was before.

So basically, all this means is that we can't have organized businesses dispensing marijuana. As if that's how we built this movement in the first place? And while, in the short run this has been a setback, in the long run it might have been what we needed to really send a wake-up call that we need to ally with one another even more than before if we're going to win this war in the courts.

Because as far as I can tell by the polls on MSNBC and the success of medical marijuana bills all over the West Coast, we're already winning this war in the court of public opinion.

Hang tight, the patients who need this drug desperately are going to continue to receive it, let's keep this in perspective and continue to chip away at the state and local levels. Let's put our sweaty, bloody heads against the drawbridge together as hard as we can; they can't hold out forever.

-Paul

rbded

"Day by day,case by case,the Supreme Court is busy designing a constitution for a country I do not recognize."

_Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Greenman

Well said paul. The movement, in my opinion, had very little to loose from taking this before the supreme court, and everything to win.

This ruling does nothing to the voter initiatives or the legislature bills signed into law in various states in the union. All that was really judged here was weither a co-op, or a buisness, could use the medical nessicity (sp) as a defence against federal marijuana laws. If one would look at this logically, how can a buisness structure have any medical needs to begin with? This never was about the patients, this was about the legality of a buisness supplying marijuana to patients. Which the supreme court rejected.

But even before the supreme court weighed in on this little issue, patients still had to live in fear of prosecution from local and federal law enforcement. This has not changed. If the court had ruled favorably for us, the patients would still live in fear, because this does nothing to protect or damage patient rights in respect to marijuana.

I disagree with your comment about the government not having the resources to track down small time dealers and medical marijuana users. The Government has unlimited resources and unlimited man-power, very important, always remember that. They WILL go after the small time medical users and sellers with as much vigor as ever. But the splintering of the group adds to the user and sellers protection because instead of having an above ground system it is now shunted off and gone underground, much as the rest of the marijuana trade. Safety in numbers, plus the added defense if they get caught, as they will most likely be tried on a state level, under state laws, that recognize medical marijuana.

One thing that just shocks me about the whole thing though. How can you say that marijuana does not have accepted medical use when you have doctors, who have access to all these great drugs people keep talking about, perscribing or recommending marijuana to their patience INSTEAD of all these other "more effective" medications. These clubs were not small mom and pop's buisness. I think Oakland had over 2,000 members, and that is just one of them. 2,000 people had a valid doctors recommendation. Doesn't that sound like the medical community finding a medical use for marijuana. Maybe I have just smoked one to many today and am not thinking clearly....

Peace.

__________________
Some will never open their eyes. Some will have them opened for them. Some will see light, some won't be able to stand the brightness and will turn away. -Robin Prosser's Diary Day 23 -- Please read our Posting Guidelines for questions on our policies.

awalkinthegrass

>> Well said paul. The movement, in my opinion, had very little to loose from taking this before the supreme court, and everything to win.

Well, while I always believe that we need to look at the bright side in this war, I would be cautious about being too optimistic about what this ruling might have done 'good' for us. After all, this has, basically, shut down the co-ops and made it more difficult for many to obtain marijuana. Of course there will always be medical patients who can still gain acccess, but let's not forget the little old lady in the wheelchair on the seventeenth floor; as Richard Cowan emphatically stated in his televised broadcast, "The 420 Marijuana News" which everyone should watch today on www.pot-tv.com, people are going to die because of this, and they are going to be the weakest and least connected of the patients who don't know how to get medical marijuana any other way. I would hope that the noble men and women providers at the co-ops can figure out a way to railroad this to the places it needs to be, but I also understand that a streamlined method of doing it just isn't going to exist the way it used to. The movement has, at least for now, been dealt a strong negative blow.

>> This ruling does nothing to the voter initiatives or the legislature bills signed into law in various states in the union.

This is a very important point that the general media has conveniently been not including in their reports, while spreading the idea that this has been a 'major setback' for marijuana advocates. I thought I would just mention this, to point out what I believe is another typical tactic that the status-quo 'liberal' media attempts to discredit us in the public eye.

>> I disagree with your comment about the government not having the resources to track down small time dealers and medical marijuana users. The Government has unlimited resources and unlimited man-power, very important, always remember that. They WILL go after the small time medical users and sellers with as much vigor as ever.

Not according to Richard Cowan and NORML founder Keith Stroup, who seem to be pointing out that the feds only have about 1,000 federal agents working this case, and also ntoed that it was very strange that they only targetted five clubs, when in fact there are many other smaller clubs located all over the state. No one is for sure if they're going to start attacking the smaller clubs in some sort of eradication attempt, as well as hunting down and arresting people in wheelchairs, but Cowan seems very skeptical of this, and if I'm not mistaken in my recollection, so does Stroup (but don't quote me on this). Stroup seems optimistic. Cowan is pissed. He's one hell of a great person to watch in action; he absolutely tears Judge Stevens to pieces at the very end of the show, calls him 'Injustice Stevens' and says "Shame on you!!" as derisively as your grandma did when you were little. I mean, he's just great. And I roared loud enough to shatter glass when Cowan said to Stroup, and I am paraphrasing here,

"So I suppose it would be a good thing for you to announce that you're not distributing medical marijuana over there at NORML, Keith."

"Oh yes, Richard, (laughing), I want to emphasize that any marijuana that's being distributed here at NORML headquarters is strictly for recreational purposes..."



It really is a rare insight into the ruling and I recommend that everyone who really cares about this ruling should watch it. I am even considering transcripting it tonight and posting it, if I cannot find a transcription anywhere else.

>> One thing that just shocks me about the whole thing though. How can you say that marijuana does not have accepted medical use when you have doctors, who have access to all these great drugs people keep talking about, perscribing or recommending marijuana to their patience INSTEAD of all these other "more effective" medications.

This is the one thing that I find most disturbing about the entire affair. You've got the Institute of Medicine telling us in an exhasutive, peer-reviewed study that marijuana has medical benefits. That should be the end of the discussion. Congress should bow to the superior body of wisdom and immediately set about rescheduling this drug so we can start making progress. But they aren't. And that is very scary, at least to me, when people may be dying because politicians are ignoring science and the authority who should have the last word in the matter, and are going about and doing their own thing.

>> These clubs were not small mom and pop's buisness. I think Oakland had over 2,000 members

Right. About 2,200.

>> Maybe I have just smoked one to many today and am not thinking clearly....

I think we could all use a few extra hits today.

>> Peace.

You too.

-Paul

awalkinthegrass

You have to keep in mind that statistically, over 99% of the drug busts and convictions in this country take place at the state level. The feds have said repeatedly that they cannot enforce their policies in the drug war without state cooperation; they weren't just blowing smoke, they meant it literally.

A federal agent or prosecutor are the elite among law enforcement in the US. If one of them decides to pick a fight with you, you can more or less kiss your ass goodbye. But it's not as if there's one for every offender, and it never will be even remotely close to that. The states wouldn't allow it, first of all, and neither would the American citizenry. I have that much faith in us. You cannot imagine the gagglef*ck that would be released if the feds stepped up a massive law enforcement campaign to eradicate these clubs. It would be a media feeding frenzy. Every NORML chapter in the world would march on the Capitol. Even with these five co-ops, they were very careful with their tactics of approach. They know they're on the losing end.

-Paul

KWhite

Let us be realistic however.
This decision had an admittedly small probability of going our way.
We knew this, the media knew this, the court knew this.
What did we gain?
We gained notoriety, and a better public awareness that something is happening.
I know, we are all very passionate people, but others see us as definitely fringe politics.
What this did, it brought the debate to light, looking for news to post at the front page, I see quite a few editorials, from some of the darnedest places, weighing in against this decision.
That is good.
Please think back just a few years to when the theme was not even spoken about.
Now it is being spoken about, vehemently, all around the world...pro...contra...no matter this debate is encouraging more people to think about the matter, and perhaps move us from the fringe to the mainstream.
What this is, is an indicator that we need to LEGISLATE!
The courts are not going to do it for us, they are unwilling to "Legislate from the bench".
And that is a good thing if we think about all the bad that little üpractice can bring.
We are voters, and our voice grows.
Perhaps a marijuana party as they have in Canada and the U.K.
I am not certain, but I would not expend too much time on the courts.
This is a sign that we must get active.
and end this madness.
Kelly
Legalize 2002!!!!!!!

awalkinthegrass

From Time magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...109777,00.html

Still no mention of the IOM Report.

I am also curious as to why Patricia Reggio focused entirely on THC and ignored the other 60-some-odd cannabinoids, some of which have been shown to have different therapeutic effects. For example, cannabidiol:

"National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists have discovered that cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive, naturally-occurring substance in the marijuana plant, is a potent antioxidant which can prevent brain cell death in an experimental stroke model. The cannabinoid's neuroprotective properties matched or surpassed other antioxidants in the cell culture model, report National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) researchers Aidan Hampson, Ph.D., Julius Axelrod, Ph.D., and NIH colleagues."
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/prcann.htm

-Paul

====================================

Monday, May. 14, 2001

Monday was not a good day for advocates of medical marijuana.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s challenge of six California distributors who provided medical marijuana to patients with various illnesses including cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS. Many advocates and patients claim smoking pot alleviates the worst of symptoms ranging from nausea to muscle tremor.

The federal government and the high court disagree, however, standing by the Controlled Substances Act, which labels marijuana a Schedule 1 drug (along with heroin, PCP and LSD). In the majority opinion, Clarence Thomas cited the CSA, writing that marijuana has "no currently acceptable medical use."

Meanwhile, over the past ten years, voters in at least eight states have thumbed their noses at federal law, approving propositions to allow the distribution and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. And the federal government has responded with unequivocal language: In 1997, when voters in both California and Arizona had approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes, Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffrey struck back, outlining various federal responses to "illegal drug activities."

Where does Monday’s ruling leave those states? Will the Supreme Court’s decision galvanize medical marijuana advocates? In an attempt to find the bottom line, TIME.com sat down with two experts to discuss the scientific and legal debates surrounding this hot-button issue.

Patricia Reggio, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Kennesaw State College in Kennesaw, Georgia, has extensively researched marijuana’s therapeutic potential. Frank Palumbo is the director of the University of Maryland’s Center on Drugs and Public Policy in Baltimore.

TIME.com: At this point, are there proven therapeutic uses for marijuana?

Patricia Reggio: People are not making up the benefits of marijuana; many therapeutic effects, like pain relief and appetite stimulation, are linked to one ingredient in marijuana. That ingredient, called delta 9 THC, is available by prescription under the name Dronabinol. The problem at this point is that Dronabinol is taken orally, and it doesn’t often do much good for patients who are nauseated, and the oral form often doesn’t deliver a whole lot of the drug to the patients’ system. Drug companies are trying to figure out more effective delivery systems, like inhalers and suppositories. The key, of course, is to get as much of the drug into the system as the patient needs — and the lungs just happen to be an excellent delivery system.

Currently, voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have approved the use of medical marijuana. Where does this leave those states in terms of law enforcement?

Frank Palumbo:I’m not sure it leaves them in any different position than they were in before. There’s still a federal law that says marijuana is Schedule 1 drug, per the FDA label. The reason marijuana is labeled a Schedule 1 substance is the federal government has determined it has no medical use.

Could we get to a point where a majority of states’ voters approved propositions approving medical use of marijuana?

Palumbo: We could, I suppose. But before that happened, the issue of medical use would probably go back to Congress, where it would be very hotly debated. At the moment, the federal government is digging in its heels over medical marijuana, and a handful of states happen to disagree with their policy.

What would have to happen for marijuana to become a legal, regulated drug?

Palumbo:Even if there were a movement at the federal level to approve marijuana as a regulated drug, the approval process would require a new drug application and lengthy clinical trials, because even though it’s not a new drug, the government would be considering a new use and a new label for it.

As current law stands, could federal prosecutors go after someone who’s using pot to alleviate nausea from chemotherapy?

Palumbo: They could, although it’s not clear how often that sort of thing happens. They probably wouldn’t have any legal problems: Current federal law provides law enforcement officers with plenty of leeway in dealing with what the law considers "drug offenders."

Fuzz E L0g1c

hate to say I told You so BUT...............


Just as I predicted in my post titled, “Supreme court, medical marijuana, and what it means to us” the supreme court has struck down the Cannabis Buyers Club and dealt a blow to legalization efforts. And just as I predicted, that ruling is having a cooling effect on other states that have passed similar laws, including my home state, CO.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...E34426,00.html

Before anybody starts raising a fuss about how the federal law does not conflict with the existing state laws, you should read that article (and the rest of this post). I know that pro-weed groups, as is their custom, are trying to downplay the ruling, claiming it won’t affect anything, blah blah blah. I don’t buy it. The message sent here is clear, and goes beyond the wording of the ruling. The message is that Pot (and its called Pot by the press, which is a slur, if you ask me) is not medicine. Pot is not a legitimate drug . It’s illegal for a reason, and it should stay illegal. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that for the purposes of federal drug laws enacted by Congress, "marijuana has no currently accepted medical use at all." none!!!!!!!


As Further evidence that the ruling WILL MOST DEFINITELY AFFECT THE STATES The Rocky Mountain News writes “Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar issued a statement Monday warning that those who grow, distribute or use marijuana ‘are in real peril of federal drug enforcement’ regardless of Colorado's medical marijuana registry, scheduled to debut June 1.”
Full article can be found here

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...480469,00.html

Another Quote, also from the RMN “The effect only reaches manufacturers and distributors. But it does put at risk patients who grow their own because that is manufacture under federal law." FEDERAL law, not state law.
Full article
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...479723,00.html


But now its in the hands of congress, you say. They already allowed one exemption, government approved research studies, they will allow others, we have the truth on our side, blah blah blah. This is just wishful thinking. check out this article to see what congress thinks about medical marijuana
http://www.mpp.org/news/ap032701.html

Before you bash me on this issue, I want to say that NORML agrees with me more or less, at least in so far as they tell me that the current congress will NEVER legalize marijuana.

That’s right folks, The ruling, just as I predicted it would, is going to send us back nearly to square one. I have another prediction as well. The federal government is going to go after medical marijuana users with a vengeance. While it is true that most weed laws are currently handled on the state level, that is going to change. Let’s see if I am right about this one too.

The federal law is going to interfere with the state law, and the ruling, Thomas' comments in particular, are going to be used as ammunition in Congress. Doc's aren't going to prescribe marijuana, because of political and legal pressure. Most importantly, in the eyes of the non-using, general public, medical marijuana has lost any credibility it might have gained. I disagree 100% with Greenman that we didn't have much to lose with this case. We lost almost everything.

Of course, this is no reason to give up. To the contrary, this is a reason to fight harder. In the near future, I will post what I think the best course of action is. I can say with certainty that it will not be very popular here, however. It should be fun.

Greenman

Thats cool, the only way we get anywhere is if there is disagreements to hash out.

Allow me to clarify for a moment.

If we would have won the case, slim as it might have been, it would have put a legal stamp of approval on CBC's and knocked the govt. out of its little witch hunt. This would have been tremendous progress for the movement. But this did not happen.

A negative ruling means that the witch hunt continues, just as it did before. Yes we did loose ground because CBC's are no longer allowed to sell marijuana to the seriously ill. But that is the extent of the loss. It has always been illegal to cultivate and sell marijuana, which is what the supreme court ruled said. Patients are in no more danger from prosecution than they were before. And just because the CBC's can no longer distribute marijuana openly, I am sure that after a couple of months, another support structure will arise for medical marijuana. This one more underground than the last.

One thing the court did NOT rule on, and the centeral issue of the debate, is the patients right to nessicity defence. This was not even touched upon by the court. And several supreme court justices indicated that the ruling would have been different had that question been before them.

We are not back to square one, because the ruling did not affect the medical marijuana laws in the other states, just that CBC are an illegal means of distribution. CBC's are not the only way of distributing marijuana, just the most popular. What happens when a med marijuana patient gives marijuana to another med marijuana patience, outside the auspices of a company structure? What are the legal implications of that. And this ruling does not address this situation.

Will it have a cooling effect? Maybe initally. Time is a little limited so I did not have the time to read your links Fuzz, but trust me I will check them out to understand your side better. But never underestimate the potential of the coverage. We are WAY beyond where we were back in 1990, and this ruling may set us back a year or two, but it is far from square one. Remember Canada still has to weigh in with Rene Boje, which has the potential of huge reprocussions to the federal government, and this ruling will be addressed during her immunity deliberations.

I also think that the coverage this is getting is doing us a world of good. It is getting our message out there and heard, and leaving people to make up their own mind. Marijuana is starting to become a mainstream political topic. And this ruling pushs it even more into the mainstream. The government cannot withstand a full frontal assault from the marijuana advocates when their feet is held to the public fire. They continue this because for the most part our side is muted out or toned down.

So overall, I think we have gained yardage in certian aspects, and lost yardage in other aspects. But overall, we are not much different than where we started. But the distance we have gained by getting our message out to the public will last much longer than the CBC's closing down as a result of this ruling. There is a vaccum in the distribution of medical marijuana now. Nature loaths a vaccum, and something will come to fill that vaccum. But the message will stay out there, twisting around in peoples heads. And those people vote every couple of years for their representatives both on the state and federal ballets.

Think of Russia during the Neopolian Wars. Russia withdrew deep into her country, surrendering all this land to Neoplolian (man my spelling is horrid today), taking substantial losses. This caused Neoplolian's supply lines to become so extended than when winter hit, they were forced to turn back with moscow on the horizon because they could get no supplies and the weather was killing his troops in droves. Neopolian suffered great losses during that millitary foray, and the russians lost nothing, and regained their land, as neopolian could not defend it. This has been one of Russia's tactics throughout its history, and it has been very successful. I see this loss much in the same way as this. Yes we lost ground, but winter is a commin'.

Peace.

KWhite

I have long said, this hurts them more than us.
read the news, the editors are twearing this apart.
And rightly so.
I am extremely surprised at the negative vibes coming out of Texas, one would expect dubya to get rave reviews.
But he is not, nor is this ruling.
we are winning.
And they made a strategic mistake!