cannabisnews.com: Court: Medicinal Marijuana is Legal










  Court: Medicinal Marijuana is Legal

Posted by CN Staff on July 19, 2002 at 08:38:43 PT
By Lori Aratani, Mercury News 
Source: San Jose Mercury News  

Californians who have a doctor's approval to smoke marijuana are protected from conviction for violating state drug laws, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.The unanimous decision -- the first time the court has ruled on the state's controversial medicinal marijuana initiative -- could reduce the number of prosecutions for growing and possessing the drug. It also bolsters the law by making it easier to defend against prosecution under the measure approved by voters in 1996.
``The possession and cultivation of marijuana is no more criminal -- so long as its conditions are satisfied -- than the possession and acquisition of any prescription drug with a physician's prescription,'' Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the court.Although the ballot measure does not shield patients or primary caregivers from arrest or prosecution, the court said it can be used as a defense to dismiss charges before a trial.Gerald Uelmen, the Santa Clara University law professor who argued the case, said the court's decision also has symbolic value because it treats medicinal marijuana like any prescribed drug.``For the first time the court is equating the medical marijuana patient with the regular medical patient who gets a prescription,'' he said. As a result, Uelmen said he was hopeful that the ruling would discourage police from arresting people who grow marijuana and have a doctor's note recommending its use.With the passage of Proposition 215, California voters became the first in the nation to approve a measure that allowed patients to smoke marijuana to ease their symptoms with the approval of a doctor. Since 1996, eight other states have passed similar measures.Since the proposition was approved, its implementation has been hampered by court cases pitting the federal government against state officials. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that made it impossible for third parties to provide medicinal marijuana to seriously ill patients without running afoul of federal drug laws. As a result, several Bay Area medicinal pot clubs have shut.Thursday's ruling grew out of a Tuolumne County case of a blind diabetic who cultivated pot to ease his nausea and maintain his weight. Myron Mower was arrested after sheriff's deputies discovered marijuana plants at his home.``Today was a good day,'' said a jubilant Mower, 40. ``This protects people from being arrested and having to worry about going to trial.''Dennis Peron, Proposition 215's sponsor, said he wished the court would have issued a stronger decision, but was nevertheless happy with the outcome.Mower was arrested in 1997 when sheriff's deputies found his 31 plants. The Tuolumne County department allows no more than three plants for medicinal use. Counties set their own limits on the number of plants permitted.Uelmen said he was disappointed that the court did not address the varying standards in its ruling.Thursday's ruling, which overturns an appeals court decision, sends Mower's case back to Tuolumne Superior Court for a trial on whether those 31 plants were for medical use. But Uelmen said he expects prosecutors to drop the case.The ruling makes it easier for Mower and other defendants to prevail at such trials.The court decided that, to prove their cases, defendants only need to raise a reasonable doubt about a prosecutor's charges that their marijuana was not for medical use. At Mower's trial, however, jurors had been instructed that he had to prove this case by a preponderance of the evidence, a much higher standard.Even the state attorney general's office, which argued the case on behalf of Tuolumne County, praised the court's decision.``The California Supreme Court's decision today provides the state with a welcome and needed interpretation of important aspects of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996,'' said Attorney General Bill Lockyer, using the measure's legal title. ``I believe the court's decision strikes an appropriate balance in helping ensure that truly needy patients whose doctors have recommended medical marijuana to alleviate pain and suffering related to serious illnesses will have access to the medicine under California law.''Note: From Doctor Can Clear Charges in California.Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)Author: Lori Aratani, Mercury NewsPublished: Thursday, July 18, 2002 Copyright: 2002 San Jose Mercury NewsContact: letters sjmercury.comWebsite: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana.orghttp://www.marijuana.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmCalifornia High Court Backs Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13466.shtmlState's Top Court Rules on Medical Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13465.shtmlState Court Gives Medical Pot Users New Protectionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13464.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on July 20, 2002 at 21:18:26 PT:
To continue...
I am not 'celebrating victimhood', here. But in bringing up the subject of McWilliams, I am calling the Feds (who have almost certainly assigned some low-level screwup LEO that they can't trust with a spoon much less a pistol to 'monitor' this site) to account for the murders and other politically oriented abuses they have created. I also seek to acquaint those newcomers to this site of what the Feds did in order to achieve their goals...namely, use the law to kill a man not accused of a capital crime and therefore not deserving of the de facto death sentence he received. The kind of death sentence that was to be visited upon Steve Kubby.This has been a gross miscarriage of justice which cries out for an investigation. If someone in a position of influence - and still possessing a conscience- should happen to see these comments and become curious as to how that happened, so much the better.I seriously doubt that McWilliams fully understood the depth of the system implementors hatred of cannabis activists. Hatred that ran deep enough for them to kill him. And given the chance, would happily 'disappear' us all, Argentina-style. Unless it becomes personal, it's academic. So I seriously doubt the man was nursing a martyr complex. Nor do I believe that he realized he had become a focus for that hatred...until it was too late, and he was trapped.But his example has removed any doubts as to the simple-minded viciousness of this 'war'...and it's prosecutors. It served as a wake-up call for activists...if only because of the brazen and murderous arrogance of the Feds.If reminding people of that serves to elicit even greater activism, so much the better. These are the only reasons why I bring him and the others up at all. Because unless most people read this, they remain blissfully ignorant...which those Feds involved in this execution-without-a-warrant would like them to remain as.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on July 20, 2002 at 20:46:20 PT:
E_J, to answer your question
if this actually does answer it; only you can decide.I didn't know McWilliams personally. Never even met him. I am not lionizing him. he made plenty of mistakes in his life...which eventually cost him his life. To me, McWilliams is a perfect example of the degree that 'our' government has become what it accuses others of...becoming a rogue state. It kills its' own citiznes with impunity
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by paul peterson on July 19, 2002 at 21:49:38 PT:
Schedule 1 challenges, why not, how?
It would appear that a defendant 1) is limited as to what he can argue by the source of the charges ie: if in state court, he has a hard time arguing the validity of the federal law, 2) is limited by the arguments made, responded to and ruled upon, 3) is limited as to the body of case law which exists (for case precedent, the fact that nobody has ever argued the validity makes it all the more difficult to get a judge to even consider that such an argument is germane to the case), 4) this might require some enterprising and interested party to be "comedically" stupid ie: to ASK to be transferred to federal court (with those "pesky" mandatory minimums and whitewashed prohibition of medical marijuana defense availability (just to get to argue that it should be available!), sort of the same stupidity I did when I submitted that "unsolicited letter" to the local lawyer police, regarding my own "medical necessity" claim, Attention Deficit Disorder and all, and that I wanted their support (not so stupid, really, since I knew the state people would eventually seek my demise as a lawyer as a way to preclude me from winning approval, etc., which they did, 8/1/01, I'm just glad I GOT THERE FIRST, SO I COULD STILL WEAR THE "WHITE HAT" on this one ie:I had sought approval prior to being busted, so I can still claim this is not just a "jailhouse conversion", etc., 5) we're almost there, of course, in that most of the "medical" research findings have closed in on those pesky "bad for you" ditties they keep harping about, making the 30 year old "arguments" look so antiquated and archaic as to seem Monty Pithonish or something.Of course, since most "positive findings" historically have been "N of 1" single "anecdotal" findings, which the FDA does not accept, Congress has been able to refute (with a straight face, no less), the clamour for change. I guess that "legislative intent" language is pretty powerful stuff!. Also, "jury nullification" doesn't give the sort of "precedental value" that extrapolable "rules of law" yet (however JN can, if properly publicized, either chill the undercover bust enthusiasm, arrest activity and prosecution, and finally, the trial rulings of the judges, who might more and more wish to avoid being the guy that California law gets stuck on, etc.New what they call "judicial fictions" start as 1) a need, which a judge grasps and makes a novel ruling which, 2) becomes and takes on precedental value, 3) then after it becomes a main "rule of law", the legislature codifies it (hopefully). I like the two step approach in somebody's post 1) State guys no longer CAN HELP THE FEDS, without breaking their own laws, & then 2) bust the feds for violating laws clearly mandated by the state's supreme court. (Even better, by federal law & Oregon "ethical" decisions, FEDERAL LAWYERS ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE STATE BAR GUIDELINES, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY CAN NOT PRACTICE DECEPTION OR SUBTRAFUGE ANYMORE!-THE FEDS IN OREGON ACTUALLY STOPPED PARTICIPATING IN UNDERCOVER STINGS-BECAUSE NO PROSECUTOR WANTED TO RISK LOSING HIS TICKET TO PRACTICE UNDER STATE ETHICAL MANDATES! This is the biggy here-Where an attorney might have to answer to whom-THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE SUPREME LEADER OF MOST ETHICAL POLICE! THEY MIGHT NOT WANT TO BE PROSECUTING PEOPLE IN FEDERAL COURT ANYMORE-PLEASE PEOPLE, GET THIS FINAL POINT COMMUNICATED AROUND TO THE CIRCLES OF YOUR LOCAL ADVOCATE LAWYER DUDES, OK? And thanks for listening to another of my rants about these things (You know, I don't get to use my LAWYER BRAINS too much anymore, since I was DEFRAUDED BY THE LAWYER POLICE MYSELF AND ALL. END OF TRANSMISSION 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on July 19, 2002 at 18:35:47 PT
VitaminT
Thank you! I got it posted. I don't have any subscriptions to papers so I had to wait until Map got it posted. Thanks for the heads up!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by VitaminT on July 19, 2002 at 18:22:28 PT
Did anyone read
John Walters' bilgewater op ed in the Wallstreet Urinal? Bull W. Crap sure knows how to pick 'em! What a brain trust LOL!FoM, Please delete this if WSJ doesn't want their garbage posted on free speech websites heck you may want to delete anyway I can't remember a drug czar comentary that was anything other than hollow propaganda. Wall Street Journal
July 19, 2002COMMENTARYDon't Legalize DrugsBy JOHN P. WALTERSThe charge that "nothing works" in the fight against
illegal drugs has led 
some people to grasp at an apparent solution: legalize
drugs. They will 
have taken false heart from news from Britain last
week, where the 
government acted to downgrade the possession of
cannabis to the status of a 
non-arrestable offense.According to the logic of the legalizers, it's laws
against drug use, not 
the drugs themselves, that do the greatest harm. The
real problem, 
according to them, is not that the young use drugs,
but that drug laws distort 
supply and demand. Violent cartels arise, consumers
overpay for a product 
of unknown quality, and society suffers when the law
restrains those who 
"harm no one but themselves."Better, the argument goes, for the government to
control the trade in 
narcotics. That should drive down the prices (heroin
would be "no more 
expensive than lettuce," argues one proponent),
eliminate violence, provide 
tax revenue, reduce prison crowding, and foster
supervised injection 
facilities.Sounds good. But is it realistic? The softest spot in
this line of 
reasoning is the analogy with alcohol abuse. The
argument goes roughly like 
this: "Alcohol is legal. Alcohol can be abused.
Therefore, cocaine should 
be legal." Their strongest argument, by contrast, is
that prohibition 
produces more costs than benefits, while legalized
drugs provide more 
benefits than costs.But legalizers overstate the social costs of
prohibition, just as they 
understate the social costs of legalization. Take the
statistic that more 
than 1.5 million Americans are arrested every year for
drug crimes. 
Legalizers would have us believe that otherwise
innocent people are being 
sent to prison (displacing "true" criminals) for
merely toking up. But only 
a fraction of these arrestees are ever sentenced to
prison. And there 
should be little question that most of those sentenced
have earned their 
place behind bars.Some 24% of state prison drug offenders are violent
recidivists, while 83% 
have prior criminal histories. Only 17% are in prison
for "first time 
offenses," while nominal "low-level" offenders are
often criminals who 
plea-bargain to escape more serious charges. The
reality is that a high 
percentage of all criminals, regardless of the
offense, use drugs. In New 
York, 79% of those arrested for any crime tested
positive for drugs.Drug abuse alone cost an estimated $55 billion in 1998
(excluding criminal 
justice costs), and deaths directly related to drug
use have more than 
doubled since 1980. Would increasing this toll make
for a healthier 
America? Legalization, by removing penalties and
reducing price, would 
increase drug demand. Make something easier and
cheaper to obtain, and you 
increase the number of people who will try it.
Legalizers love to point out 
that the Dutch decriminalized marijuana in 1976, with
little initial 
impact. But as drugs gained social acceptance, use
increased consistently 
and sharply, with a 300% rise in use by 1996 among
18-20 year-olds.Britain, too, provides an instructive example. When
British physicians were 
allowed to prescribe heroin to certain addicts, the
number skyrocketed. 
 From 68 British addicts in the program in 1960, the
problem exploded to an 
estimated 20,000 heroin users in London alone by 1982.The idea that we can "solve" our complex drug problem
by simply legalizing 
drugs raises more questions than it answers. For
instance, what happens to 
the citizenship of those legally addicted? Will they
have their full civil 
rights, such as voting? Can they be employed as school
bus drivers? Nurses? 
What of a woman, legally addicted to cocaine, who
becomes pregnant? Should 
she be constrained by the very government that
provides for her habit?Won't some addicts seek larger doses than those
medically prescribed? Or 
seek to profit by selling their allotment to others,
including minors? And 
what about those promised tax revenues -- how do they
materialize? As it 
is, European drug clinics aren't filled with
productive citizens, but 
rather with demoralized zombies seeking a daily fix.
Won't drugs become a 
disability entitlement?Will legalization eliminate violence? The New England
Journal of Medicine 
reported in 1999 on the risks for women injured in
domestic violence. The 
most striking factor was a partner who used cocaine,
which increased risk 
more than four times. That violence is associated not
with drug laws, but 
with the drug. A 1999 report from the Department of
Health and Human 
Services showed that two million children live with a
parent who has a drug 
problem. Studies indicate that up to 80% of our child
welfare caseload 
involves caregivers who abuse substances. Drug users
do not harm only 
themselves.Legalizers like to argue that government-supervised
production and 
distribution of addictive drugs will eliminate the
dangers attributed to 
drug prohibition. But when analyzing this "harm
reduction" argument, 
consider the abuse of the opiate OxyContin, which has
resulted in numerous 
deaths, physicians facing criminal charges, and
addicts attacking 
pharmacies. OxyContin is a legally prescribed
substance, with appropriate 
medical uses -- that is, it satisfies those conditions
legalizers envision 
for cocaine and heroin. The point is clear: The laws
are not the problem.Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that
drugs place us in a 
dilemma: "We are required to choose between a crime
problem and a public 
heath problem." Legalization is a dangerous mirage. To
address a crime 
problem, we are asked to accept a public health
crisis. Yet if we were to 
surrender, we would surely face both problems --
intensified.Mr. Walters is director of the National Office of Drug
Control Policy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by mayan on July 19, 2002 at 18:02:51 PT
Lies In The Light
The lies of the Feds are being seen for what they are...LIES!!!They can't beat the truth, they can only delay the inevitable.unrelated -CIA Director Warned Congress About 9/11 Attacks!
http://www.thememoryhole.org/tenet-911.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by p4me on July 19, 2002 at 14:24:12 PT
another hack at the center pole
I would like to ask this question in regards to the second criteria for classification for a Schedule 1 Narcotic as stated in comment 11: (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United StatesIf California, Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and is Washington the 9th state and maybe Illinois makes 10 recognize the medical use of cannabis, then how the f can they say that it is not currently accepted as medicine? It is accepted medical use in 9 states so what kind of logic says it has no accepted medical use? None. Just DEA lies.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by p4me on July 19, 2002 at 14:15:27 PT
Controlled Substance Act of 1970
In response to comment8, this is the link to the CSA of 1970: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htmAbout a sixth of the way down in Title 21, Section 13 it says this:" (b) Placement on schedules; findings required. Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on the effective date of this part, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows: (1) SCHEDULE I.
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."Now this is one big reason to call the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 Narcotic a lie- it has to met the criteria of A and B and C. I would not respect the opinion of anyone that said MJ meets the criteria for either B or C , either of which would disqualify it from Schedule 1 status. So even if there is an argument over A, it is all but moot.When is some reporter going to come out and say that the present classification of marijuana that blocks its use as medicine is a lie and actually call it the Schedule 1 Lie. Did Richard Cowan just say bad journalism. That's right, even Dick Cowan does not address the pole that holds up the DEA circus tent as the Schedule One Lie.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by E_Johnson on July 19, 2002 at 13:13:31 PT
Stop all this victim cult puleeeze
Look was Peter a political prisoner or NOT?
If you decide that he was a political prisoner, then maybe you should stop castrating him by presenting him as weak helpless puppy victim.This is taking all of the heroism out of what he did.Is he a helpless victim or a brave hero who went to his death fighting an abusive system?Was he a brave man who knew that he was going against the system and knew that he could be crushed?If so then don't talk about him like he was some innocent child who just wandered innocently into the situation he ended up in.He and Todd didn't wander innocently into anything. They were trying to take a very risky stand and they lost their gamble and got taken down by the system. They were grownups who knew what they were doing and this whining on their behalf is robbing them of that adult status.Soviet dissidents never described their dead or their prisoners as poor helpless victims.They had a more serious situation than we face and they faced it with dignity.And they also knew that celebrating the victimhood of their own prisoners was like celebrating the power the enemy had to hurt them.Why do people here want to celebrate the ability of the DEA to hurt us?It's really not wise for political dissidents to play the victim card too much.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by p4me on July 19, 2002 at 12:35:52 PT
dimebag- comment8
I needed a reason to put this link up to the yellowtimes article that I felt was the best article yet on hemp/marijuana: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=467&mode=thread&order=0From that article:"The CSA categorized all drugs into five "schedules," mainly based upon the drug's potential for abuse and its medical uses. Schedule-One drugs have "a high potential for abuse … have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States … and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of [these drugs or other substances] under medical supervision." According to the authors of the CSA, marijuana is such a drug. So is heroin. So are mescaline and peyote and several dozens of such lesser known opiates, opium derivatives, and hallucinogenics as acetylmethadol, etorphine, and psilocybin."My favorite paragraph from the article is: "Only a complete ignoramus, a religious fanatic, and/or despicable hypocrite could claim - today or in 1937 - that marijuana has "no … accepted medical use." To say that this is so is like arguing that white is black and that the Earth is flat, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary."If you have a friend that wants to know about hemp/marijuana or if you know of someone that wants some facts on hemp/marijuana, I strongly recommend this article to be copied and handed to them. One thing about yellowtimes.com- they are happy to have their articles copied and circulated as long as you credit their website. If you have not read the article you have missed a breathe of fresh air: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=467&mode=thread&order=01,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by dimebag on July 19, 2002 at 11:45:06 PT
Please Help
I know there are three catagories that a drug has to fall under to be classified as a Class "A" Substance.
1: It must have no Medicinal Value, 2: Its effect on the user must be more harmful than that of the prohibition of the Drug,And 3: ????? What is the Third category? I cant seem to remember.But my arguement is and would be to any congressmen/senator is that Marijuana does not fall under these two categories. Ever Heard of Medicinal Marijuana. Oh and lets see. I can smoke a Bag of weed, and get high and not really do any harm to my self or society, or I can get cought, face massive penalties, fines, jail time and possible asset forfetiure of my property and monies. So lets see, which would be more detramental to my well being, Getting high or going to jail..... Hummm.... I just cant seem to out weigh the other. Its just sooo Even balanced. FUCK NO...Write to your congressman/senator ... The More they see us complaining, the more they May think about possible changes.Remember, Title It: End Cannibis Prohibition, it just sounds more effective. End Cannabis Prohibition.Dimebag.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by herbdoc215 on July 19, 2002 at 11:28:44 PT
Good point Kap, but this has implications
 Beyond these stories, now we can sue for declaritory relief which will be a big deal. Also from wording I believe cops will have to prove neferious intent before they can railroad patients through legal system. I know that anything we did would stand the light test here if it's only medical use they are determining for charges. That's why court didn't affix numbers, put's onous upon the piggers to prove, BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT. Peace, Steven Tuck
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2002 at 11:04:09 PT:
Herb, I don't want to be the wet blanket
But like I said, the fight is only started...and California legislators and bureaucrats haven't shown much in the cojones department. McWilliams was a Californian...and the legislature, the bureaucracy, the executive branch there...they all let him die.It could have been stopped. Lockyer could have done a lot more. Davis especially could have. But the Feds threatened them, and they caved. Now they discover something between their legs? After so many others have joined McWilliams? Ah-hem. They probably still need that magnifying glass, so don't ask them if they are finished with it yet...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 19, 2002 at 10:53:49 PT
herbdoc215 
I'm so glad that you seem happy and hopeful now! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by herbdoc215 on July 19, 2002 at 10:49:50 PT
I'm going home, oh I'm going home....
Looks like it won't be long and I'll be back were I belong, in California with my people and the redwoods!!!!!!!!! Won't be long now until the Feds are sent packing and sanity returns to my home! What took them so damn long to issue a ruling that in 1997 seemed so clear to so many of us? About time a court acted like it was issued a pair! This makes my whole miserable week much better, Peace, Steven Tuck  in exile 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on July 19, 2002 at 10:47:26 PT
Bullies in the schoolyard
Thursday's ruling, which overturns an appeals court decision, sends Mower's case back to Tuolumne Superior Court for a trial on whether those 31 plants were for medical use. But Uelmen said he expects prosecutors to drop the case.
It's always rough being the weakest kid on the playground when there are bullies running around.Well they got enough of the blind diabetic kid's lunch money, I hope these guys finally stop beating him up now.Meanwhile we have little girls plucked off the streets by murderous deviant maniacs and the ones we can find are dead and the ones we can't find, who knows...Too bad the DEA can't use all their skills to find Elizabeth Smart.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2002 at 09:53:10 PT:
"No quarters asked or given!"
What it meant was "No mercy!". Anyone injured in combat was not taken off the battlefield to a part of it set aside for the wounded (the famous 'quarter'); they were slain out of hand.The Feds, while hiding behind the robes of judges, have shown no mercy to those they have hounded . They used Federal law to kill Peter McWilliams, and tried to kill Todd McCormick. They have shown in no uncertain terms their lack of compassion.Now it's their turn.The latest ruling concerning medical cannabis usage having a State approved status puts the State of California on collision course with the Federal judiciary. What this means is that local California police may no longer be forced to cooperate in Federal drug operations targeting MMJ users. To do so will obviously violate the State law that they are sworn to uphold. If they assist the Feds, they are in violation...and subject to arrest by other California LEOs. indeed, it opens the door, however unlikely, that Federal operatives might become subject to arrest for violating California state Law.But the more important aspect of this ruling is that a battle royale must now take place between the States and the Feds. Although I am not too optimistic, given the Feds ever increasing tendency to fight dirty against it's own citizens, this time I believe they have bitten off more than they can chew.Finally...the gauntlet has been thrown down, the challenge issued...and this time, the Feds are hearing from the State of California what the Feds have smilingly told every MMJ user: "No quarters asked or given!". They made this slimy bed; now let them sleep in it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on July 19, 2002 at 09:09:54 PT
more stuff
I was just reading about South Korea's attempt to control drug cost under its government program. The main thing they wanted to do was encourage use of cheaper generics instead of the high priced originals. Then the US government stepped in and said you should reconsider trying to do practical things and think about the profits of our pill companies. That is my interpretation of this article: http://insightmag.com/news/258737.htmlThen there was the op/ed piece from the NY Times that was put up at buzzflash.com and is also at MAPinc on the 30 years of Rockefeller drug laws in NY: http://nytimes.com/2002/07/18/opinion/18HERB.htmlI have read that the NY Times owns the Boston Globe and the Chicago Tribune owns the Los Angeles Times. I put this up so that someone might correct my thinking and secondly to say there are less voices out there than I previously thought.I am still waiting for the Zogby poll on the legalization question. Well the Gallup poll will do its annual question in August and there should be a big jump from that 34%. If it is not near 40% I may have to call bullshit and call the poll pure chickenshit. Just how hard is it to call a thousand people? 1,2
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment