Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:26 pm

no link, yet

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:57 pm

DrDetroit wrote:no link, yet

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158690,00.html

This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.

One would think they'd have better things to do

but apparently not.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 3:58 pm

Landmark for the Bush administration??

How so?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:01 pm

Even sadder is that the dissenters were O'Connor, Thomas and Rehnquist. What in the hell are Ginsberg and Kennedy doing in the majority?

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:04 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Landmark for the Bush administration??

How so?

From the article

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act (search) was constitutional.

I don't know, but something tells me Dins isn't going to take this well

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Landmark for the Bush administration??

How so?
Who the hell do you think brought the case before them?

Wasn't sure.

I was only aware of the Bush administration pursuing a similar case in Oregon.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:27 pm

Miss Demeanor wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Landmark for the Bush administration??

How so?
From the article

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act (search) was constitutional.
I don't know, but something tells me Dins isn't going to take this well

No American should be taking this well.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:33 pm

I hear Rush going on and on about the Court acting unconstitutionally because the activity taking place isn't subject to the interstate commerce clause.

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm

mvscal wrote:Just another blatant abuse of the motherfucking commerce clause.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:52 pm

Their ruling is based on the interstate commerce clause.

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:57 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Their ruling is based on the interstate commerce clause.

I knew that from the article.

I was just curious about mvs and his use of the term "another".

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:16 pm

Mvscal...be prepared to be "Borked."

LOL!!

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:25 pm

mvscal wrote:
Miss Demeanor wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Their ruling is based on the interstate commerce clause.
I knew that from the article.

I was just curious about mvs and his use of the term "another".
Here is a good background piece on the Commerce Clause by Robert Bork and Daniel Troy.

LOCATING THE BOUNDARIES:
THE SCOPE OF CONGRESS'S POWER
TO REGULATE COMMERCE

ROBERT H. BORK* AND DANIEL E. TROY**

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm#*

Thanks

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:47 pm

Not everyone is willing to abide by this ruling:

SAN FRANCISCO - One of the lead plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday says she'll defy the ruling and continue to smoke pot.
ADVERTISEMENT

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.

The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value.

Justice
John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997, after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is battling degenerative spine disease.

"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said.

Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other plaintiff, to close.

Raich suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems.

Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other states, but have taken measures — such as not keeping client lists — to protect their customers from arrest.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations and their clients' pot supplies.

Raich and Monson sued Attorney General
John Ashcroft because they feared their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up.

Exactly what did Bush hope to accomplish with this ruling? Another great victory in his "War on drugs"?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:05 pm

mvscal wrote:His war on drugs?

Sorry guy, this blatantly unconstitutional war on drugs has been going on for far longer than he's been in office.

To be correct, its been going on since before Poppy Bush was even born.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:09 pm

Doesn't matter how long it's been going on. He's continuing it, and in this fashion.

Not content to stop pot at the border, he now wants to make sure all of those dangerous poeple suffering from chronic pain don't get out of control.

Nice.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:13 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Doesn't matter how long it's been going on. He's continuing it, and in this fashion.

So I guess he should get the credit for Social Security then too, right?

Or is he only responsible for the New Deal legacy programs you don't like?

Fair enough. We'll give you Charlie Rangel if you give us Chimpy.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:Doesn't matter how long it's been going on. He's continuing it, and in this fashion.

So I guess he should get the credit for Social Security then too, right?

What has he done for Social Security? When he does something, he can get the credit. As long as he's forcing his moral drug agenda down the throats of sick people who are benefitting from its use, he can take that credit too.

Or is he only responsible for the New Deal legacy programs you don't like?

No, but it's his fault that FDR got polio. ;)

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:21 pm

And that's fixing it how?

I'd like to see what would happen if he stopped funding it.

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:32 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Not everyone is willing to abide by this ruling:

"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said.

Fer sure dudette!!

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:44 pm

mvscal wrote:He isn't fixing it. He is enforcing it. Same as with the various drug laws. As long as these shitty laws are on the books, he is obliged to enforce them.

He had the option NOT to appeal, and chose to appeal it anyway. He wasn't obliged to do that, except within his own narrow focused brain.

You attempting to blame him for 70 year old legislation is, at once, the height of both hypocricy and imbecility.

I'm not blaming him for anything. I was merely responding to your comment of whether he should get credit for social security. Unless he does something other than continuing to fund it and makes no inroads into fixing it, no. He gets no more credit than any other president who didn't do shit about it.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:57 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:I'm not blaming him for anything.
Try again. Not all of us here have five minute attention spans.

Mister Ritalinice wrote:Another great victory in his "War on drugs"?

I'm not blaming him for social security. Hows that mister anal?
You have a bad habit of quoting out of context. :)

However to clarify I am blaming him for his latest victory in the war on drugs needed by sick people.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 pm

Miss Demeanor wrote:I don't know, but something tells me Dins isn't going to take this well

Although I'm sure I could have hit that one doc who wrote something like 75% of the presciptions(out of the back of his van) up for a card at one time, I didn't. I don't need to tell the freaking government that I like to burn a little on an occasion -- didn't seem like a good idea.

Nice victory for the "state's rights" party, though.

In Oregon, I don't think it's going to change much. Simple posession isn't a criminal offense, so unless some police are really bored, I doubt they're going to be able to get evidence to serve warrants very often. Plus these days, anything that Bush and Co. say, everyone in the state will do the opposite, just to spite them. That's what our interaction with the federal government has become anymore -- a spite battle with the administration. Washington pretty much has the same deal going. Besides a few "rebels with a cause," I just don't really see this as a big deal here. People will still smoke at will, and as long as they're not affecting others by it, nothing will be done......AS IT SHOULD BE(I know, I know....very conservative of me).

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:23 pm

I guess that one can only hope that Congress will do the right thing here

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm

Miss Demeanor wrote:I guess that one can only hope that Congress will do the right thing here

I'm sure you didn't mean that. Congress and the right thing in the same sentence?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:26 pm

mvscal wrote: Won't stop the Feds from hammering your cornhole.

There's the catch -- they have to come up with eveidence that you're growing, which IS a crime. Can't break down your door for possession. Which brings things right back to Square One -- bad things will happen to the stupid people, the smarter ones will get over. And the Supreme Court can't change THAT law, which has been in effect since man first walked on two legs.

But, all the externalities and moral stuff aside, I think this boils down to state's rights verses abuses by the fed. Sounds like that's how you see it, as well. And the Board Rule has been the same for a long time -- anytime someone or some governing body does something that puts me and mvscal on the same page, it means there was an egregious fuckup.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:14 am

I am all for state's rights in this case. Let CA do what they want. Hell, it brings a smile to my face when I think about it. Regional pockets around the country where pot is legal. CA, MA, MI. What's wrong with that. If they allow it maybe more of the druggies will leave TX and never come back. At the same time let SFO and MA have their gay marriages. That will just continue the migration of gays to those areas and that suits me just fine.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:21 am

Left Seater wrote:I am all for state's rights in this case. Let CA do what they want. Hell, it brings a smile to my face when I think about it. Regional pockets around the country where pot is legal. CA, MA, MI. What's wrong with that. If they allow it maybe more of the druggies will leave TX and never come back.

This case has nothing to do with "druggies."

Unless of course you're referring to the pharmaceutical lobby.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:25 am

Left Seater wrote:If they allow it maybe more of the druggies will leave TX and never come back.

Oh, I forgot -- prohibitions eliminate drug use.

Wait -- it's been proven that they don't. What prohibitions DO accomplish, is an increase in crime.

RACK Texas, that bastion of progressive thinking. And we sure shouldn't let that stop that one Texan in office from lining his buddies' pockets, like his father before him(and Bubba in between), engaging in profitable prohibition.......errrr, the "War on Drugs." You tards DO realize that a war declaration gives the administration power to allocate funds without any sort of approval, right? And since it's known that prohibitions increase violent crime, what was it that Raygun was trying to accomplish?

If you fucking morons keep turning the other cheek on corruption, it's never going to stop. Buy a clue, dumbasses. You're getting worked.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:12 am

And since it's known that prohibitions increase violent crime

So what you are saying is that laws making murder illegal are actually increasing murder. Taking that one small step further we might as well do away with all laws since they just lead to more lawlessness as you claim.

You can bring your corruption garbage and keep claiming that we are getting worked, hell I hope those on both coasts keep thinking that, but it is far from the fact. If some states make it easier for druggies to use then they will leave the states that make it as difficult as possible.

There are plenty of examples of this. Take the carry law passed in Texas in '95. Since we allowed our citizens to arm themselves just about everywhere they go violent crime has fallen each year. As we continue to execute violent criminals the violent crimes fall. As we build more jails and lock up more criminals for their full tijme, crime falls. Hell, the states on the left and right coasts are shipping us their criminals to hold for them at a nice profit for us.

I also like how you use the term progressive, as if being progressive is always a good thing or that Texas is never progressive. Being progressive is all based on your perspective. I guess Texas wasn't progressive when they decided to rely on themselves for power rather than tapping into a national grid. I guess CA was progressive in banning oil tankers from docking in their state instead opting for 8000 18 wheelers delivering what one ship could.

Again keep thinking that Texas isn't progressive we are doing just fine without you.

Radiofan,

In my view those who use pot for any reason are druggies. I know many people disagree with that take, but if you spend about 10 minutes around a place like Sierra Tucson or Betty Ford you might see it the same as I do.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:23 am

Left Seater wrote:In my view those who use pot for any reason are druggies. I know many people disagree with that take, but if you spend about 10 minutes around a place like Sierra Tucson or Betty Ford you might see it the same as I do.

That's like saying everybody who walks into a casino ends up like this guy.

Fucking Weak.

Besides, tell it to a significant number of Americans who are taking some kind of "medicine."

Oh, wait, I forgot. The drug companies can't afford TV ads. They're struggling with their huge R&D budget, just to make ends meet.

Get real, LS.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:37 am

I am real. Hell, I would rather see alcohol added to the controled substance list before seeing pot removed.

Tell me what part of watching a relative become hooked on "medical" pot perscribed by a Dr isn't real? Tell me what part of the stories shared at Sierra Tucson durring family week about pot just being the launching pad for other drugs isn't real? Tell me what part of not having a father because he was murdered by drunk driver isn't real?

I sadly know "real" very well. Call me F'ing weak as you put it, but clearly not everyone will end up like your example, nor will everyone become addicted or an alcoholic. But given the fact that such a large percentage of our population stuggles with these things they should be controlled.

There are enough guys on this board that have had the opportunity to meet me in person. They will tell you that I enjoy my alcohol as much as the next person. But again I would support adding alcohol to the controled substance list before I supported removing pot.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:47 am

Left Seater wrote:Tell me what part of watching a relative become hooked on "medical" pot perscribed by a Dr isn't real?

The part where it isn't physically addictive, by any medical study whatsoever.

Left Seater wrote:Tell me what part of the stories shared at Sierra Tucson durring family week about pot just being the launching pad for other drugs isn't real? Tell me what part of not having a father because he was murdered by drunk driver isn't real?

So transferring your personal loss to prohibition is the answer?

Left Seater wrote:I sadly know "real" very well. Call me F'ing weak as you put it, but clearly not everyone will end up like your example, nor will everyone become addicted or an alcoholic. But given the fact that such a large percentage of our population stuggles with these things they should be controlled.

I never called you weak, bro.

Just your argument.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:07 am

I got the fact that it wasn't a personal shot, but was using "real" first hand events to support my arguement.

Again, a few minutes around a place like Sierra Tucson will give you all the "medical study" info you need on the subject of pot being addictive.

If mine were but the only loss that would be a different story, but watch about 10 minutes of you local news cast or read "your" paper and you will see plenty of stories similar to mine, pot included.

Not everyone has trouble with pot, just like I know my limits with alcohol. However, there are plenty of people who don't know or can't control themselves and it becomes a legit danger to you and I.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:57 am

The two highest incidences of murders per capita were at the peak of Prohibition, and at the peak of the War on Drugs.

Flail on.

And hey.....a lot of people die in car accidents every year. The solution is simple, right? I'll send you the petition to sign where we outlaw cars. They fuck up a lot more people than drugs ever thought about, so I'm sure you're all in favor of outlawing cars, right? I mean, we need to protect the people, right? Oh, wait.....THAT law would æffect you, so it's no good, right? OK, that one is a little much. Let's go with fatty foods. You do realize heart disease kills more people than drugs, alcohol, and car accidents put together, right? So, you're all in favor of banning fatty foods, right? Because surely you're not going to try to say that pot is a geater danger to ANYONE than fatty foods, right?

Watch out kitchen knives, we're coming for you next.

And we just went through this. Marijuana, while habit-forming, is not addictive. Regardless of how many no-last-namers cry that it is.

Perspective is a wonderful thing. You should get some sometime.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:06 am

Left Seater wrote:I got the fact that it wasn't a personal shot, but was using "real" first hand events to support my arguement.

Again, a few minutes around a place like Sierra Tucson will give you all the "medical study" info you need on the subject of pot being addictive.

If mine were but the only loss that would be a different story, but watch about 10 minutes of you local news cast or read "your" paper and you will see plenty of stories similar to mine, pot included.

Not everyone has trouble with pot, just like I know my limits with alcohol. However, there are plenty of people who don't know or can't control themselves and it becomes a legit danger to you and I.

I see the rehab industry has you hook, line and sinker.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:07 pm

mvscal wrote:
Miss Demeanor wrote:This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.

One would think they'd have better things to do

but apparently not.
On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.

In response to Ashcroft's agents running amok.

Miss Demeanor · Post by **Miss Demeanor** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:18 pm

mvscal wrote:
Miss Demeanor wrote:This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.

One would think they'd have better things to do

but apparently not.
On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.

Hmm, I guess what confused me was

"The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, which appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court in California ruled for the two women.

But whoever brought the case to the Supreme Court has won a landmark victory. I can hardly wait for the arrests to begin.

I think it's definitely better to use some opiate or synthetic opiate to control pain and/or relieve nausea.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:10 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Although I'm sure I could have hit that one doc who wrote something like 75% of the presciptions(out of the back of his van) up for a card at one time, I didn't.

Just out of coincidence, I saw a friend last night who works for the health department, and processes the applications. For the sake of accuracy, my 75% number was incorrect. Health department dude roughly estimated Dr. Leveque(sp?) wrote around half of the state's ~10,000 presciption/recommendations(whatever the correct terminology is for dr. approval on the forms). He also estimated that between Leveque and his business partners, they wrote around 95% of them. What a great country. Dude would tour the stae, set up some makeshift clinic, and line people up for interviews. The magic words were "marijuana seems to help more than anything else." Boom, he signed your paperwork......for the low low price of $175 per "exam." Multiply $175 times 5000 in a couplefew months, and 80 year old on-his-way-out doc raked some in en route to the retirement home. I think the state ganked his medical license when all was said and done.

Health department dude also said that yesterday morning, after the SCOTUS decision came down, they immediately ceased handing/sending out cards........but, they continued to take applications.....and the application fee. Cheesey freaking bastards. I'm suprised they didn't raise the application fee from its current $50, back to the original $175 in anticipation(the early ones didn't expire, the later/cheaper ones were yearly). It's all about the revenue.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:17 pm

Miss Demeanor wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Miss Demeanor wrote:This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.

One would think they'd have better things to do

but apparently not.
On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.
Hmm, I guess what confused me was

"The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, which appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court in California ruled for the two women.
But whoever brought the case to the Supreme Court has won a landmark victory. I can hardly wait for the arrests to begin.

I think it's definitely better to use some opiate or synthetic opiate to control pain and/or relieve nausea.

I still don't get the "landmark" nature of this decision...care to explain, MissD?

T1B

Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use

Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use

Re: Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use

Re: Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use

Re: Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use

Re: Newsflash - USSC bans medicinal marijuana use