Marijuana Plaintiff to Defy Court Ruling

[Zhade]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/health/medical_marijuana

Marijuana Plaintiff to Defy Court Ruling
AP - 2 hours, 17 minutes ago


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. "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.

That's all of the article on Yahoo!

[melissinha]

1. wahts the deal

Did you guys read who the dissenters were.. I'm confused... guess I have to read their opinions...


9-3 Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented.

So this is a states rights issue?

[havocmom]

3. Well, O'Connor and Rehnquist are not in good health.

Perhaps this hits close to home?

Thomas? Who the fuck knows. Maybe he likes lots of options, ya know, to get ta feelin good.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Yeah, then they'll send her to prison

that'll stop her from getting drugs.

[Zhade]

5. Yeah, because there are of course NO drugs in federal prison.

:eyes:

[baby_bear]

4. Here's the NYTimes article

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/politics/06cnd-scot.html?ei=5094&en=166cf10948687873&hp=&ex=1118116800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

<snip>
The 6-to-3 decision, arising from a case in California, concluded that state laws cannot override a federal ban on the substance. The ruling ran counter to the wishes of voters and lawmakers who had adopted "compassionate use" marijuana statutes in California and 10 other states.
...
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a dissent, joined on most points by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," Justice O'Connor wrote.
...

Justice Stevens also expressed doubt that all the marijuana supposedly grown for medical purposes will be used strictly to alleviate pain and suffering. "The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market," he wrote, noting that "the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use."
</snip>

By all means, remove all narcotics from the market because someone might use them for the wrong reason. To hell with people with intractable pain.

Of course, that is why the medical use of heroin is illegal in this country (but not in England, for example).

This country is so paranoid and narrow-minded about drugs that it forces unnecessary suffering and in doing so fosters a very profitable black market for the "recreational" user. You think my 82 year old mother is going to use marijuana for "recreation" or take Oxycontin because she needs a high? No, she needs relief from constant, excruciating pain. The doctors in California are so paranoid that she has a terrible time getting sufficient narcotic medication, let alone marijuana.

This makes me so damn mad.

b_b

[Zhade]

6. First off, it's a plant, not a drug.

Second, recreational use should not be banned. Period.

[0rganism]

7. and this ruling could be the catalyst for change

We would be remiss to let medical exemptions stand in the way of a rational policy for legalization, regulation, and taxation.

[Zhade]

9. Do you actually think we'll get that change?

After decades of lies and propaganda demonizing a very beneficial (and, IMHO, sacred) medicinal plant, I'm not hopeful.

In my view, marijuana and hemp will only be legal following one of two things: a revolution in which the rule of We The People is restored, or a catastrophic economic disaster caused by the thinning of forests (reducing our available paper stocks) and Peak Oil (hempseed oil can replace it, at least partially).

Otherwise, I just don't see it, as much as I wish it would happen.

[0rganism]

16. I don't know if we'll see it in our lifetimes, but it must be our goal

The ruling of the court assures us of this much. As long as the current federal system remains viable, we cannot simply co-exist in parallel with the lies and propaganda as they are. We have to fight back and strike at the heart of corruption. One of my gripes with the Oregon state law, which I voted for, is that it encouraged complacency while entrusting government with a registry of quasi-legal users and growers. Now we can see, all to readily, what happens when we fight against the effects of poor legislation rather than its causes.

Of course, were the central government to collapse for whatever reason, as you hypothesize, all bets are off. Until then we must seek to amend or remove the current law at the federal level.

[CanSocDem]

14. Your 'rec' is my 'pain'....

"Justice Stevens also expressed doubt that all the marijuana supposedly grown for medical purposes will be used strictly to alleviate pain and suffering."

It's ALL about alleviating 'pain and suffering'. Pot smokers have a low tolerance for 'crap' and that is what the authorities fear most...
.
.
.

[Zhade]

17. Indeed.

NT!

[baby_bear]

20. A plant can be a drug.

There are many medicines based on botanicals. Belladonna, for example.

It's not particularly relevant to the argument, at any rate.

b_b

[Zhade]

25. "Based on" means "derived from", right?

In other words, the botanicals had to be processed into a drug.

It's not totally relevant, but I like to be precise where possible.

[baby_bear]

26. I'll concede that

If you processed the cannabinol from the marijuana plant, it would be similar.

Likewise, heroin/opium from poppy seeds.

I'm not sure what difference it makes to the legal discussion, but it probably depends upon the wording of the statute that is causing all this distress.

As the ruling noted, Congress can change this outcome.

b_b

[slackmaster]

8. What's the point in this kind of protest?

I'm sure the feds will be happy to oblige her, and nothing will have been gained.

This SCOTUS ruling in no way invalidates California's medical MJ law. It affirms the conflict between state and federal laws, which we already knew about.

[Zhade]

10. I think the USSC just ruled it DOES invalidate state law.

If you read it differently, please share. I see this as a very bad ruling which will have a chilling effect on doctors who would otherwise prescribe marijuana.

[slackmaster]

12. SC ruling vacates a 9th Circuit decision

Then remands the case back down to the Circuit for further procedings.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html

[Zhade]

15. I'll take a look at it, thanks for the link.

I'm no lawyer, though, so I may have a tough time plowing through it - but any bit of hope is good, as long as it's not false hope.

[deacon2]

13. I believe this actually gives absolute jurisdiction to Feds

As I read the ruling, it effectively invalidates ALL state laws allowing medical marijuana. Is it the intention of this administration to promote pain and suffering wherever and however it can? Because I can't find any evidence to the contrary.

[High Plains]

18. Wrong! The state medical marijuana laws remain in place

This decision merely says that the Controlled Substances Act can be applied to people growing and consuming medical marijuana in states where it is legal. In other words, the state laws remain in place, but the feds can come in and arrest people under federal law.

In reality, this law will have little direct impact on the ground. I don't expect to see massive federal arrests of medical marijuana users or providers (although as someone who wants to legalize the weed, that might be a good thing for propaganda purposes). Even the DEA knows it has better things to do than concentrate on sick people.

Politically, however, this ruling could make it more difficult for state medical marijuana legislation or initiatives to pass, precisely because people will misinterpret the ruling in the same way you did.

[baby_bear]

21. What do you think of this passage?

<snip>
Respondents also raise a substantive due process claim and seek to avail themselves of the medical necessity defense. These theories of relief were set forth in their complaint but were not reached by the Court of Appeals. We therefore do not address the question whether judicial relief is available to respondents on these alternative bases. We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.
</snip>

An invitation for change?

b_b

[catmandu57]

11. People should go down to whatever federal agency

is closest, courthouses, fbi, farm bureau etc... and do it in numbers light up and dare them to enforce this ruling, and do it in waves day after day.

[nittygritty]

19. AOL Story and Poll...

Wow. Look the AOL Poll on this story:

Do you agree with the ruling?
No 79%
Yes 21%
Should federal drug laws be changed to allow medicinal use of marijuana?
Yes 82%
No 14%
Not sure 3%
Total Votes: 108,280

Story and Poll link:

Plaintiffs Say They'll Continue to Use Marijuana
Supreme Court Says Federal Drug Law Trumps State Medical Pot Laws
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050606101709990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

[neohippie]

23. Kick for the poll numbers

Well at least for now the poll numbers look good. This issue needs more attention from people who have better short term memory than I do.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

22. they hate us for our freedoms

this makes me glad to know that we have a conservative government that is all about states rights, the will of the people, morals, a lessening of bloated federal bureaucracies, no activist juddges, and all matter of freedom being on the march.

god bless the USA!!!

:eyes:

[Indy Lurker]

24. The SC decision is not about Marijuana

It is about whether a item produced distributed and consumed entirely in one state can be considered "Interstate Commerce".

According to the majority opinion, this has be settled previously, and the previous decision was if an item is produced and consumed without leaving a state, it may be still be considered interstate commerce if it affects commerce in other states.

This is of course important, because the only way the federal government can impose most of the federal laws, is via the "Interstate Commerce" clause in the constitution, which gives it the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Sadly, with this decision, little if anything is left in the hands of state or local governments.

[Chicago Democrat]

27. Cochise

Audioslave
Cochise

Well I been watchin'
while you been coughin
i've been drinking life
while you been nausous
and so i drink to health
while you kill yourself
and i got just one thing
that i can offer

go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and and save yourself
take it out on me yea

well i'm not a martyr
i'm not a prophet
and i won't preach to you
but heres a caution
you better understand
that i won't hold your hand
but if it helps you mend
then i won't stop it

go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and save yourself
take it out on me yea

go if you want
and i'll see you in the bottom
where you crawl
on my skin
and put the blame on me
so you don't feel a thing

go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and save yourself
take it out on me
go and save yourself
take it out on me yea

[Skypilot 18]

28. supreme court of Bozos

Seems to me if a doctor can give you morphine for pain, and morphine has caused overdose deaths, then why not pot ? I don't recall anyone ever overdosing on pot. Aside from lung damage, pot is non-toxic. Tobacco kills more folks each year than pot. For one thing you smoke much less pot to attain the desired effect. Tobacco cigarettes can be smoked all day long. I know. I used to smoke 2 packs a day before I quit.

Alcohol causes more traffic deaths every year than all the drug overdoses combined. And alcohol is completely legal.

This country is so backward. And with Bushit appointing more judges I fear that we'll be going back-wards even faster than we are now.