""In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project)," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous court."
In other words, the Supreme Court is interpreting Marijuana's medicinal value only according to the wording of the Controlled Substances Act. THat means that they are really refusing to deal with the case, instead throwing it back into the hands of Congress to re-define the wording of the Act that makes Marijuana illegal.
I wonder how this largely Republican Congress is going to decide this issue? States Rights? Aren't they big on that one? Leagalize Marijana for medicinal useage? How unpopular that would be for their Conservative bent. Outright legalizing/regulating Marijuana use? Hehehehe! I'm gonna watch this one closely -- see how they try to avoid looking like Uncompassionate Conservatives!
posted on May 14, 2001 05:44:01 PM
I believe its legal for medicinal purposes in my state, so its a controlled substance.
I don't believe its unpopular for the Conservatives.
In as far as I know how its dealt here, it is used for glaucoma and nausea due to cancer treatment. I really think they (those damn Republicans ) know this also.
posted on May 14, 2001 06:33:50 PM
That's COMPASSION at it's best....We have such an ANAL-RETENTIVE government...Federal as well as State!....
They are all so scared of not being re-elected! Heaven forbids that
a poor patient who cannot hold any food down should suddenly get WELL because of injestion of MJ!!!!!NoNoNo! We must please the CROWD, NOT the INDIVIDUAL!
I say BULL!
Why is there NO GUN CONTROL???? That certainly is more needed than POT control!
posted on May 14, 2001 07:47:35 PM
So many blind....so few guide dogs....
First of all I represent no political party.
Second I Dont use drugs.
But I have a real obvious point to project onto you political bandwagoners....
Shosh says something about gun control.(or the lack there of.)Well if you actually knew what you were talking about and understood what it takes to buy a firearm these days you would quickly withdraw your comment.Nuff said on that.(but feel free to retort with any factual statements and I will be more than happy to accomadate you.)
As far as drugs go.....Legalize it all...
Marijuana should be sold next to the damn lettuce in the supermarket.(of course age restricted like tobbaco/alcohol.)
And the rest of the drugs (coke,crank,crack,
heroin,etc,etc,should be controlled and distributed by Local/state government authorized facilities.Addicts are registered,
and put in a KDA (known drug addict) file prohibiting them from any custody over a child , and driving.(there are also plenty of other uses for a KDA file.)
All we have now is a growing money pit in the name of this "false" war on drugs.
We could put an end to the black market,
releive taxes on private citizens and small businesses with the extra income,and have a place to take our children and show them what drugs do to people(excluding maryJane)like needle park in Swizerland.
The black market was created by prohibition.
The same will happen to firearms.You wont have to get a background check.You wont be restricted from certain types of weaponry.All you would have to do is go see Johnny Gangbanger and give him a few clams and presto!So if you are into anarchy and rampant shootings from gun deals gone bad then keep on voting for a lemming leader that promises to "Keep the streets safe" by banning guns.Yeah...that'll work.....It sure did for drugs huh?
posted on May 14, 2001 08:10:39 PM
Tectah-well said on drugs. Seriously, this is like prohibition days.
In our state (WA) we have state controlled liquor stores. Course you can buy beer and wine at your local grocery store, but Jack Daniels won't be there.
A loooooong time ago, they would issue Liquor Control cards to anyone that applied when they turned 21, and you could only buy in the state store with that card. Thats long gone.
And as the old saying goes
Prohibition was better than no alcohol at all
Yes I believe it would get rid of these street drugs, drug lords and this 'war on drugs' that has been going on.
posted on May 14, 2001 09:00:11 PMAddicts are registered, and put in a KDA (known drug addict) file prohibiting them from any custody over a child , and driving.(there are also plenty of other uses for a KDA file.)
Oh brother.
KatyD
(ubb)
[ edited by KatyD on May 14, 2001 09:01 PM ]
posted on May 14, 2001 09:12:22 PM
My father has just finished 6 months of chemo and radiation. He lost about 100 pounds. It would have made all of us happy to see him have the munchies. Perhaps it is time for the politicians to get out of the medical field - and let it up to the doctors. If marijuana even lightens the effects of chemo and radiation then by all means give it to the patient. Or are they afraid the cancer patient will become addicted? Pleeeze ....
The cause of Dad's cancer is perhaps the most disgusting drug of all ... cigarettes. I have watched this man try to quit since I was a child. He began smoking at age 8 - and it has caused him to have a triple bypass and now cancer.
I read somewhere that the war against drugs has cost $20,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States, and it is a losing battle. Imagine what that money could have done for out economy ... for the sick and the elderly ... maybe even a cure for cancer could have been found.
Sorry for the ranting ... I feel better now. Time to put my soapbox away.
posted on May 14, 2001 09:19:32 PM
Tectah, while I understand what you're saying about drugs, I think what Shosh was saying was also true. Gun control in the U.S. is a joke. Trying to BUY a gun may be "difficult", but getting your hands on one doesn't seem to be a problem.
posted on May 14, 2001 09:27:08 PM
I haven't smoke marijuana in 15 years, but when my uncle was dying everyone in my family was contributing to make sure he had the best money could buy (this was suggested by the doctor). My father bless his heart was about as anti-marijuana as you could get, but he saw how it helped. I smile at the thought of my 74 year old dad meeting a guy in a parking lot to pick up a bag of Maui Wowie one day when I had to leave on a business trip. He loved his brother very much.
Laws are necessary, but compassion is even more necessary.
posted on May 14, 2001 09:46:41 PM
Kraft......exactly........on the black market....Anyone could get a full auto AK from Johnny Gangbanger for around $400.
But me,a law abiding citizen is restricted to 10 rounds , and limited capability weaponry.
And if you ban the legal sales of firearms will that put the johnny ganbangers out of business?No it would obviously increase his business,allowing more dangerous weaponry available to anyone with a fist full of cash.
I think I like it the way it is now.You get a background check,take a safety course and if you pass you get your weapon.The black market we have currently could be easily dealt with using crime control.I'm not worried about you voting our freedom away.
Because without a gun shop I'd have a street corner dealer with no limitation on weapon
styles or availability.I would break the law to defend my family and so will thousands of other people.
"Leave our freedom be."
Tectah
Katy D = I dont understand your post.Please articulate if I'm incorrect but I beleive you
thought I was meaning marijuana users would get a KDA file.Not so...only hard drugs.
[ edited by Tectah on May 14, 2001 09:50 PM ]
posted on May 14, 2001 09:50:49 PM
There's too much money in the medical field for them to allow the use of a substance that can be bought outside of the big chain drugstores. Why legalize it? ...with all that money to be sucked out of the upcoming generations that will be sitting on inheritence loads. So wrong that the alternative looks better.
posted on May 14, 2001 10:45:52 PM
Money, money, money. That's what it boils down to. Marijuana was a huge US crop for awhile. The last thing the pharmaceutical and energy companies want to see is a return to legality.
posted on May 15, 2001 08:53:38 AM
Well, they overrode the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Remember, this case was started by the government.
In Sept. 99, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Judge Breyer (in the initial case) didn't take into account
The Strong public interest in the availability of a Doctor prescribed treatment that would help ameliorate the condition and relieve the pain and suffering of a large group of persons with serious or fatal illness.
posted on May 15, 2001 08:55:16 AMuaru is correct. The Supreme Court unanimously (that means liberal and conservative members of the court) struck down the use of medicinal marijuana. The reason they were unanimous is because as it stands now, it is an illegal substance. The Supreme Court does not decide which substances are legal or illegal, they just interpret the laws.
As far as the writing of the laws by a republican controlled house - marijuana was illegal long before the Republicans took over in "94.
tectah your point on gun-control is correct, if you outlaw guns (or seriously restrict them) only the outlaws will have them. Little Johnny Gangbanger will have my business too, if that day ever comes.
However, your KDA file concerns me for one very important reason - How would one get off the list?
posted on May 15, 2001 09:09:52 AMyour KDA file concerns me for one very important reason - How would one get off the list?
Precisely, jlpiece.
there are also plenty of other uses for a KDA file
Sounds like a good way to limit or abuse our civil rights. In one breath, you talk about decriminalizing drugs...in the next you suggest creating "lists". Nazis had "lists".
posted on May 15, 2001 11:39:10 AM
Hey, "guide dog"...I am not blind....I just happen to have very strong (positive} feelings about the medicinal purpose of marijuana.
And please, tell the two Oakland women, innocent by-standers, who were gunned down on Mother's day, how WELL gun control works!.....Tell the parents of all the children who have been gunned down IN SCHOOL, how well Gun Control works....
I have seen plenty of guns exchange hands at Antiques Shows...A lethal weapon remains lethal, no matter if bought LEGALLY at a gun show or on the black market.
Governments agencies would do much better to try and control the huge gun black market, and leave alone the poor person such as uaru's Father, who ONLY WANTED TO LIVE...!
posted on May 15, 2001 12:03:34 PM
What personally grates on my nerves is everytime I hear it when these self righteous cops get on TV and say in such a serious tone that someone is charged with MANUFACTURING marijuana. They try to make it sound like the person has a big chemical lab set up. I guess I am guilty of MANUFACTURING radishes in my backyard.
Instead of creating a sinister imaige like they believe it just convinces the kids that they can't open their mouth without lying.
posted on May 15, 2001 12:09:01 PM
OK. Reguardless of how we got to this point, here we are. It is now in the hands of Congress. It will be up to Congress to either make Marijuana lower than a Class 1 drug (as dangerous and poisonous as plutonium, seemingly) and allow terminally ill patients who have exhausted all of the "normal" avenues of pain relief the right to die without all of the discomfort.
The question remains: what will the Republican controlled government do about it? Will they be true to the conservative bent? ( JLPiece: please go learn the history of the Controlled Substances Act; i.e. who backed it and made sure Marijuana's place on it was a Class 1[/b] ) Will Republicans be "forced" to be Compassionate against their collective will? Will Big Corporations, who stand to loose *HUGE* amounts of business drainign the resources off of the dying be represented by Congress over the people again?
Stay tuned for these answers and more, right after our commercial break ...
posted on May 15, 2001 12:17:23 PM
Shoshanah-those are real tragedys.
There are laws on guns.
I was listening to the news on the radio (no links) that England cracked down hard on the ownership of guns, and the result was they have more gun related incidents now
Austrailia did the same, and from what I remember hearing has the highest crime rates involving guns. I have no links from this.
If krs was here, I wanted to ask him what this bill is that McCain and Lieberman have introduced about some Gun Show Loophole. I didn't catch it all..... no links, this was off the news on the radio.
posted on May 15, 2001 12:26:59 PM
Tectah, do you happen to know just how many lives have been SAVED thanks to owning a gun? The NRA doesn't keep track of any of those numbers but CLAIM it's thousands. (Based on.....????) IMO, guns are for one thing only, unlike pot, which can improve people's lives. Shouldn't "the war" be the other way around?
As far as Shosh goes.....she's been through it all FIRST HAND. She knows what she's talking about Tectah.
Snowy also knows what she's talking about. She's in the medical field so her opinion comes from her experiences with her suffering patients.
Wouldn't people that have been through cancer treatments (or whatever), and people that treat suffering people be the best judges of what works and what doesn't? How would a politician know what's going on unless it affected him/her?
We've got to get away from the stigma attached to pot and pain meds. So what if someone gets addicted to a drug? You automatically think an addicted person must be a loser, or headed for the gutter - out of control. I think the person would probably have more to offer himself and life, if he/she were pain free.
posted on May 15, 2001 12:32:32 PM
Here's an interesting fact.
Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness among African Americans. The drugs to treat glaucoma are quite costly, and some have very nasty side effects. Not one clinical trial involving marijuana is being done. Not for glaucoma, HIV or Ca related cachexia, nausea/vomiting, nothing. What, the government is only testing drugs developed by the drug companies now?
Here is one of the glaucoma trials being done with some interesting info.
posted on May 15, 2001 12:34:19 PM
It just makes me ill thinking about the poor souls who have to endure the awful side effects of chemo when I know there is a substance that can alleve their suffering. It should be between the attending doctor and the patient.
They are suffering enough. It makes me sick to even think about it. Uaru is right. Compassion should be a consideration.
I had a neighbor about 20 years ago that was going through chemo. His doctor did prescribe marijuana and it did help. The cancer eventually took him, but he didn't have to suffer the side effects of chemo before it took him.
I've never smoked marijuana, but you can bet your sweet bippy that I would want the option of using it, should I ever need to have chemo.
Does anyone know all of the 7 states where it legal to use medicinal marijuana?
posted on May 15, 2001 01:02:55 PM
The U. of W. here grows and researches it.
I believe its legal for medicinal use, but now not sure. I thought CA was one that it was legal for that use?
