cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Tug of War





Medical Marijuana Tug of War
Posted by CN Staff on December 13, 2003 at 19:22:09 PT
By Michael Gougis, Staff Writer
Source: Daily News 
Operators of a West Hollywood cannabis club, let off recently without jail sentences by a federal judge, say they see the light sentences as bittersweet victories in the fight to safeguard California's legal right to smoke marijuana for medical purposes.Their battle is with the federal government and they have a lot of supporters on their side -- including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and local law enforcement officials.
The problem is that the federal government refuses to recognize the state's 1996 voter-approved law allowing doctor-prescribed marijuana use for patients suffering from cancer, HIV and other chronic diseases. And with no immediate plans by the state to take on the federal government, experts say the issue will remain in a legal limbo -- leaving patients, doctors, prosecutors and law enforcement officers scratching their heads. The clubs, like West Hollywood's Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center, which served 960 patients, are being closed and their clients are turning to the black market to buy marijuana."It's a sad statement about our times when people whose only goal is to help others are caught up in a political backlash," said Ron Kaye, the attorney who represented LACRC operators Scott Imler, Jeff Yablan and Jeffrey Farrington.Even U.S. District Judge Howard Matz, who sentenced the three men to a year of probation, scolded prosecutors for bringing the case to trial and called their work "admirable." He gave them the most lenient sentence under the law."Despite the fact that our program is destroyed, we couldn't have asked for a better outcome in court," said Imler, a cancer sufferer who co-authored Proposition 215, the ballot measure legalizing medical marijuana use."We tried very hard to change the law using the mechanisms we learned in civics class. It was very hard to view ourselves -- and be seen -- as criminals."The case was the latest high-profile showdown between California and the federal government and continues a bizarre legal pattern that has developed since Prop. 215 took effect. Typically, federal prosecutors bring the cases to trial, win a conviction and then federal judges hand down light sentences, infuriating the Justice Department.In July, the Justice Department appealed the sentence of San Francisco activist Ed Rosenthal for growing marijuana for patients in Northern California. Rosenthal was sentenced to just one day in jail. The appeal is still pending.Eight other states have medical marijuana laws similar to California's. The Justice Department says it will continue to raid marijuana centers and farms because the state laws conflict with federal law banning the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana, even for medical purposes."We don't contest the sincerity and good faith of these defendants," federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told Matz last week. "But we do have a legal regime in which a law was passed by Congress and I think ... all of us, whether we agree with those rules or not, need to abide by them."Ultimately, medical marijuana advocates say, the states will have to pressure the federal government to change the law."We have thousands of Americans who need this, and we have judges who are refusing to put people in jail. The last logical step is to change federal policy," said Stef Sherer, executive director and founder of Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group based in Northern California.Until then, a kind of don't ask, don't tell system -- where doctors recommend the drug but can't prescribe it, where patients are safe from local prosecution but risk federal charges -- is emerging."The greatest impact is on the patients who had come to rely upon us," Imler said. "They've been driven back into the streets, alleys and parks, and giving their money to people who do not have their best interests in mind."Imler's cannabis resource center was operated with the blessing of the Sheriff's Department and the city of West Hollywood, which helped purchase the building it operated from. The city is in litigation over the building with the federal government, which seized it in 2001 and sold it for $1.2 million.In the short to medium run, legal observers say, clubs can exist as long as they keep a low profile and do not acquire any assets, like property, which can be seized."Smaller, less-visible ... word-of-mouth places are going to be the ones that stay off the federal radar," said Mitchell Earleywine, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California and an expert on the legal and ethical issues surrounding its use."As the clubs get bigger, those are the ones the federal government goes crazy over."While Schwarzenegger is a supporter of medical marijuana use and has pledged to support the state law, a spokesman said he doesn't intend to press the issue in Washington anytime soon.So advocates intend to press on with legal challenges and legislative proposals.Two are advancing in Congress, both supported by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Huntington Beach Republican whose mother died of cancer.Also, a new state law that will go into effect Jan. 1 limits caregivers or patients to six mature or a dozen immature plants per patient and creates a state registry that identifies users of medical marijuana. It also creates a 24-hour hotline for law enforcement officials to verify that someone they've detained is a registered user of medicinal marijuana.The law is the result of a task force assembled by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who has loudly criticized the federal government for raiding medical marijuana clubs in California.Americans for Safe Access has started a telephone campaign to the constituents of four California congressmen who voted against a proposal that would have stopped federal medical marijuana raids. The four, two Democrats and two Republicans, represent districts where the raids occurred."There's a lot of fear -- justified fear -- among patients. But I think there's a lot of brave, compassionate people who will continue to do what they know is right, and federal policy will just have to catch up," Sherer said.The Associated Press contributed to this report.Note: Lenient sentences underscore conflicting state and federal pot laws.Source: Daily News of Los Angeles (CA)Author: Michael Gougis, Staff WriterPublished: Friday, December 12, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Daily News of Los AngelesWebsite: http://www.dailynews.com/Contact: michael.gougis dailynews.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:LACRC http://www.lacbc.org/Ed Rosenthal's Trial Pictures & Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmThere's a Word for People Who Try To Assist Sickhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17862.shtmlProbation Granted To 3 Who Grew Pot as Medicine http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17860.shtmlJudge Rules No Prison for Three MMJ Workershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17858.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #32 posted by escapegoat on December 16, 2003 at 07:58:08 PT
Canadians for Safe Access vs. Anne McLellan's lies
Man, this was fun...you don't see it in this video, but I have a tape of the LIVE broadcast (this went out LIVE across Canada) and you should have seen her squirm. Like a deer in the headlights...
Anne McLellan Press conference
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by jose melendez on December 16, 2003 at 03:57:36 PT
a window to CE's question #25
from: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/045041.htmNovember 26, 2003Democracy vs. Theocracy
 When people try to argue that the government should promote a particular religion or particular religious beliefs, they aren't just seeking to advance a religious cause. No, they are also promoting a political cause - their own cause, obviously enough, and one which they hope will provide them with political and social power at the expense of non-Christians in America. Thom Hartmann writes in OpEdNews, debunking many claims about what the Founders of the American government actually thought and said about religion generally and Christianity in particular: 
[T]he record tells us that many of the Founders and Framers believed that secular democracy is a more powerful unifying force for a decent and peaceful civil society than any religion ever was or could be. Although most were spiritual in their own ways, and many were also openly religious, as students of history the Founders and Framers knew the damage that organized religion could do when it gained access to the reigns of political power. The United States and our laws were not founded on the Bible, or even on biblical principles. Moral precepts against killing or stealing are found not only in the Bible, but exist among every tribe on earth, some of whose cultures and languages date back over 60,000 years. They're part of the social code of animals ranging from prairie dogs to gorillas. They're rooted in the biological imperative of survival. The key to liberty, Hartmann writes, is the separation of power in four spheres: military, religious, wealth/corporate, and political. Tyranny comes when power from two of those spheres becomes concentrated into the same hands - for example "warlord kings; theocratic popes; and wealthy feudal lords or monopolistic corporations like the East India Company." see also:http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheocracybyTheWay:Limbaugh is asking that his medical records be sealed, complaining that Palm Beach investigators have seized them, and are harassing his doctors. Is that the normal conservative opinion? I thought it was "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about" as they make ever more intrusive, arbitrary regulations. Good God! (grin)EJ is right , this is all too surreal . . .
drug czars restrain trade, monopolize cannabis
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by sukoi on December 15, 2003 at 16:54:24 PT
Thanks Sam!
“We need more green if we want to keep smoking the green!”No, I sure don’t know any millionaires, but I’ll check around! Also, this might be surprising but I don’t smoke the “green”, but believe me, I would if I could! Where I work I am subject to a violation of the 9th amendment; random drug testing! If it costs so much to take a case to the Supreme Court, how are all of these individual cases heard? If it is easier that way then Kubby, Rosenthal and Nord should present their cases. Since The Supreme Court can only determine the Constitutionality of a lower court decision, I fail to see how any of these decisions can be upheld. When they voted against medical marijuana, what were their findings (justification)?Maybe Reagan should take up the herb, I hear it works quite nicely for Alzheimer’s patients!All of you guys are awesome!!!  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Sam Adams on December 15, 2003 at 16:20:23 PT
one more....
Sorry for so many posts, here's the story on the dime...don't look now, but our friend Rep. Souder is involved.......http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,104930,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Sam Adams on December 15, 2003 at 16:17:56 PT
By the way...
Speaking of the conservative revolution that Reagan started, have you guys heard that a bunch of Republican Congressmen are pushing to have Ronald Reagan's face replace FDR on the dime? I couldn't believe it but it's true.It's funny, for those of us that grew up in the 70s and 80s, all we ever heard about was the big social revolution of the 60s. No one ever talks about the Conservative revolution of the 80s. That's part of the revolution! The rise of apathy and conformity, and the fall of free, independent, critical thinking..
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Sam Adams on December 15, 2003 at 16:14:49 PT
The Judiciary
Sukoi it's a question I've asked many times also - why can't we just sue the government and get to the Supreme Court and have Prohibition thrown out?The answer is this: In 1980, Reagan was swept into the presidency in a landslide victory. This was the endpoint to an unprecendent 25-year period of social reforms enacted mainly through court decision by the Judiciary branch of the US government (and state govt's). In 1980, let by the hardcore religious right, the Republicans set out to make sure that this era of reform and social justice came to a permanent end. And they've been largely successful. The judiciary in this country is now extremely conservative. In 2001 Canada's Supreme Court voted in favor of medical marijuana by 3-0; the same year our Supreme Court, led by Clarence Thomas, voted against medical marijuana 9-0.  I think the biggest reason for the change is that the right-wing succeeded in politicizing the judicial nomination process. But the results are clear: the independent judiciary is rotten to the core, there's no more reform coming from that direction.  Indeed, the Supremes recently voted to allow public high schools to take urine from 14-18 year old students.  Good luck asking these fun folks to legalize marijuana. Not one of them will even allow sick and dying people to use it!There is no national referedum process. At the state level, it usually costs at least $1-2 million to run a referendum campaign. The drug policy reform movement is starved for funds, and simply can't afford to do this every 2 years. Know any rich people? We need more green if we want to keep smoking the green!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by sukoi on December 15, 2003 at 15:50:46 PT
Max, thanks again. You are so right when you said:
“The horrible realization that you are haiving is that "they" (meaning NO authority figure of any stripe) have no actual legal basis for prohibition whatsoever. They just do it because they can. And they can because most of us let them.As to why there haven't been any earth-shattering historical court cases on this subject is because to this point, nearly everyone has been too cowardly (or making too much profit) to deal with it, this includes presidents, congresspeople, senators, judges, on down to the common man, the worst offender of all...”Now (here I go again!), with that in mind, I don’t understand why this is not being directly challenged by those organizations that we contribute to. Meaning: why doesn’t MPP, NORML, Change The Climate et.al. get together and challenge the Constitutionality of prohibition directly at the federal level instead of lobbying officials, funding ad campaigns, etc…, or has this already been done? Further, what would it take to get this issue on the 2004 ballot for a popular vote? I hope that I’m not being too much of a pain; it’s just that I’m frustrated and confused about this whole issue and you guys are a tremendous help. I’m not sure of what has been done and what can be done, that’s why I’m asking all of these questions. I figure that I’ll gain some knowledge and who knows, maybe ignite a spark that may turn into a fire. I sure hope so! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on December 15, 2003 at 13:24:33 PT
When will the american THEOCRACY end? 
Has anyone here studied the history of theocracies? How long do they usually last?Is there a chance that the U.S. can get back to its liberal/libertarian roots and stop all this religious rule nonsense? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on December 15, 2003 at 13:15:00 PT
The U.S. Government has Mental Health issues.
Anyone ever thought about this idea? I think the gov't is a gang full of mentally ill psychos.Give them treatment for their mental health problems.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Max Flowers on December 15, 2003 at 12:05:06 PT
sukoi!
You see things so clearly, and I know it hurts. I';m there too. You again nailed it on the head 100%. The horrible realization that you are haiving is that "they" (meaning NO authority figure of any stripe) have no actual legal basis for prohibition whatsoever. They just do it because they can. And they can because most of us let them.As to why there haven't been any earth-shattering historical court cases on this subject is because to this point, nearly everyone has been too cowardly (or making too much profit) to deal with it, this includes presidents, congresspeople, senators, judges, on down to the common man, the worst offender of all... the closet stoner of 25+ years who just does it in his bedroom late at night, blows it out the window so the kids won't smell it... you know the type...MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by FoM on December 15, 2003 at 08:44:56 PT
Cannabis Enthusiast 
I'm not sure I understand your question but as long as it has http:// in front of the www pasted in a comment it will work. I hope this is what you wanted to know.http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc08/smokesignals/khat.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by jose melendez on December 15, 2003 at 08:39:03 PT
beet-field peons unite!
for more about the history of cannabis BUY 'A Drug War Carol'http://www.adrugwarcarol.com/index.htmlhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1922/a01.html?397http://www.free-market.net/features/bookofthemonth/drugcarol.htmlhttp://www.libertybookshop.us/mall/A-Drug-War-Carol.htm
enemies of a free America
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by sukoi on December 15, 2003 at 06:20:18 PT
Thanks Max, one more...
Yeah, I’ve read about the Marijuana Tax Act, Anslinger, Hearst, etc… and it still makes no sense. And from what I understand, they claim that their authority to ban substances is granted under the “Interstate” Commerce Clause. I still fail to see how this would apply in cases where someone is growing and using cannabis in their own home, so if it never leaves a state (not even the home) how would an “interstate” clause apply? Based on that alone, I fail to see why this hasn’t been argued in the Supreme Court, or has it? If it has, what was the outcome? And then there’s the drug testing issue, a clear violation of the 9th amendment.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on December 14, 2003 at 23:19:16 PT
Khat
Khat contains "Cathinone", which can be turned into "Methcathinone" with a chemist's help (?). Erowid's Khat page Click on "Khat Chemistry..." midway down the page for more info...FoM, how do you do links in the comment again?
Khat article from Cannabis Culture
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Virgil on December 14, 2003 at 18:52:47 PT
Feds claim authority under Commerce Clause
The Constitution is not about defining our freedoms. It is about defining the powers of the federal government. The 13 states were independent countries just like the European Countries that failed to agree on a European Constitution this last week. The Bill of Rights did outline 10 freedoms that were to specify exact freedoms and some argued that it was not necessary, as all freedoms were implicit and in fact would tend to make people think they had to be inumerated. It is the tenth amendment that says that everything not authorized in the Constitution was outside of federal power. The federal government says they have power derived from the Constitution in the Commerce Clause that says they are to regulate trade.It is an issue that should have been resolved by now in regards to the CSA of 1970. It is a failure of government and society to answer the question.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Max Flowers on December 14, 2003 at 18:13:46 PT
might have failed to answer your question...
As to what "they" say gives them authority, if you ask them that, they will NOT be able to point to anything in the Constitution but in every case will have spewed a lot of garbage about needing to do something about an "emerging threat" but in the end, if you are talking Constitutionally, NOTHING gives them the authority. They are assuming it whether you like it or not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Max Flowers on December 14, 2003 at 18:09:44 PT
sukoi
Again, your question is indeed incisive. To answer it thoroughly we have to go back to when cannabis was criminalized the first time in the USA which was in the 1930s, the "reefer madness" era. I suggest you do some research on Harry Anslinger, whose horrible deeds are plaguing us to this very day. Read the history of how he and the "bureau of narcotics" (forerunner of the DEA) and the Hearst newspaper company all joined forces to demonize cannabis and spread lies to the naive American public about what it was capable of doing to people. Their reasons were primarily to subjugate minorities (blacks and Mexicans) and to shut it down because of the threat it posed to the petrochemical industry, logging, and any number of other major industries when they started to realize how useful the plant was. Hypocritically, during WWII the cry was "Hemp For Victory!" as they encouraged folks to grow hemp (cannabis) for rope for the war effort. When the war was won, it was right back to "demon weed!". Then during the Nixon administration they passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which scheduled cannabis as Schedule One (no accepted medical use and high abuse potential). Again this was an act of cultural war, despite their claims about wanting to protect the public; it was revenge for the hippie movement, or at least a way to penalize "counterculture radicals" who smoked pot a lot more viciously.MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by sukoi on December 14, 2003 at 13:16:56 PT
Max
What do the feds say that their stance is based on? What I mean by that is what specifically do they say gives them the authority to ban a substance and interfere with states rights and the rights of the people? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by global_warming on December 14, 2003 at 13:08:00 PT
Max, add this story to your heart
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec03/192578.asp"Marijuana's rising threat
For more kids, use turns into addiction
By FELICIA THOMAS-LYNN
fthomas-lynn journalsentinel.com
Last Updated: Dec. 13, 2003
John Brown experimented with marijuana at age 10, and it wasn't long before his experimentation grew into a five-year addiction.Marijuana Addiction
 
 
Photo/Jack Orton 
John Brown (center), a student at Vincent High School, heads to class with friends. John says his first experiments with marijuana at age 10 developed into a five-year addiction.
 
 
 
Photo/Jack Orton 
John Brown checks out the blackboard during math class at Vincent High School. The freshman is in treatment at the Milwaukee Adolescent Health Program, located within the Downtown Health Center, for his marijuana addiction.
 
 
Quotable
 
 Someone would always give it to me for free. . . . It was part of my environment. 
 
- John Brown,
who started smoking marijuana at 10
 
 
Photo/Michael Sears 
 
 It's an absolute nightmare to see your child flush his life down the toilet for the drug. 
 
- Katrina Kruck,
whose son, Alex (below), recently finished a court-ordered stay in a youth center 
 
 
Photo/Mary Jo Walicki 
 
 
Photo/Mary Jo Walicki 
Cleon Suggs, an alcohol and drug counselor with the Milwaukee Adolescent Health Program
 
 
Where To Call
 
For more information about substance abuse treatment, contact:
Toughlove, a parent support group, (262) 780-9919.
Milwaukee Adolescent Health Program, (414) 277-8916.
Aurora Psychiatric Hospital, (414) 454-6600.
 
 
Turned on to the drug by an older brother, John said, he first started taking "tokes," or hits, every other week off of blunts - a marijuana cigarette wrapped with cigar leaves.At his peak use, the Vincent High School freshman said, he smoked as many as eight blunts per day. He is now among a growing number of youths who are addicted to marijuana.Today's marijuana use is no benign rite of passage, experts say. The average level of THC - the active ingredient - in the drug rose from less than 1% in the mid-1970s to more than 7% today, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and that higher potency is leading more young people to addiction.Adolescent marijuana addiction is a serious health issue, said Robert Denniston, who leads the national anti-drug campaign as acting director of the drug policy office.In Wisconsin, among the youth ages 12 to 17 entering treatment in 2002, more than one in three had marijuana as their primary substance abuse, according to the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.According to national statistics, the proportion of eighth-graders who tried marijuana in the last decade doubled, from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5."Marijuana is the most prevalent drug of addiction for kids. The drug today is so much stronger than even 10 or 15 years ago," said Brian Fidlin, a senior outpatient psychotherapist with the adolescent chemical dependency program at Aurora Psychiatric Hospital in Wauwatosa."The public needs to be educated," Fidlin said. "Almost every individual I see acknowledges marijuana use to the point where they are not functioning anymore."Since its inception two years ago, the Aurora program has treated more than 500 patients.Experimenting younger
Clean and sober for five months, John, now 15, is among 18% of high school males in Milwaukee who used marijuana before the age of 13. That statistic is from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.John, who lives in Metcalfe Park, said it was easy to buy the cigars to make blunts at "certain stores that didn't check ID," and it was equally easy to get weed."Someone would always give it to me for free because I knew people who sold it," he said. "It was part of my environment. We were smoking, drug dealing and involved in gangs."John, who was arrested earlier this year on drug possession charges, has been in a court-ordered drug treatment program since June confronting the personal issues that led him to begin using the drug in the first place."My mother is incarcerated, and my father is somewhere. He doesn't have a place, either," said John, who now lives with an aunt. Taking a deep breath and closing his eyes, John said that marijuana "made everything slow down."John is in treatment at the Milwaukee Adolescent Health Program, located within the Downtown Health Center, 1020 N. 12th St. The program offers free chemical-dependency treatment and is funded through the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Fighting Back Initiative.Cleon Suggs, an alcohol and drug counselor with the program, said he sees 50 youths a month who have drug addictions, primarily to marijuana. He said many have underlying problems, such as depression, and they use marijuana to self-medicate."These kids are up against a lot of adversity. The kids I deal with have problems at home and at school," he said. "It's an escape. A lot of kids are facing time because of that pleasure. My job is to give them an alternative to feeling good and help them overcome a lot of those social difficulties."The drug has wreaked havoc in the lives of many families throughout Milwaukee's metropolitan area.In Wauwatosa, Katrina Kruck and her husband, Michael, had their marijuana-addicted son, Alex, arrested for striking his father."He was hitting me and his dad when he came off of a drug high. We just couldn't live that way anymore," Katrina Kruck said.Alex, who had been an A-student and an avid sports player through eighth grade, began using marijuana heavily when he got to high school, she said.A junior at Wauwatosa East High School, he recently completed court-ordered time at St. Charles Youth & Family Center for the attack on his father."Marijuana is not the innocent drug people think it is. It's an absolute nightmare to see your child flush his life down the toilet for the drug," Katrina Kruck said. "We have had drug dealers in front of our house because Alex didn't pay them for the drugs."Katrina and her husband have sought help by joining a parent support group. On a rain-chilled evening, Katrina Kruck joined a dozen other parents gathered in a small space just inside a Brookfield fitness center.They formed a circle, and one by one shared their experiences as the parent of a drug-addicted teen. One woman in the group said her 16-year-old daughter traded sexual favors for marijuana. A man said his daughter saved up her lunch money to buy pot. Another woman said she had to take out a second mortgage so her son could get treatment for his addiction.The group is small, Katrina Kruck said, but there are many other parents out there who are in denial."Unless people start talking about it, the problem is only going to get worse."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on December 14, 2003 at 13:02:12 PT
sukoi
Thank you. I'm glad to know that CNews has helped you. We are very fortunate to have such fine people here. I've learned so much over these past years. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Max Flowers on December 14, 2003 at 12:45:44 PT
typos
Oops that was supposed to read "given me the mental outlook of..." Typing too fast at the end there!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Max Flowers on December 14, 2003 at 12:42:05 PT
Welcome to the party Sukoi
When I had that same "what the f*ck?" moment about that, it was profound for me as well. That is the very core, the most fundamental part of the issue, right there.You are right, the federal government has no right to prohibit citizens from having substances, period. It is totally out of its role and area of jurisprudence, period. And they (federal officals) have taken it upon themselves to do it anyway, for decades now, and they do what they want, period. The 10th Amendment has been rendered impotent as you are just now beginning to realize.The day I fully realized that the federal government (DEA, federal prosecutors, federal judges) are all too willing to ruin people's lives for enjoying a dried flower, as well as ruin their health in the case of medical patients, based on a false authority that they shouldn't even be exercizing, with total disregard for the true principles of freedom this country purports to be founded on, my heartbreak and dismay and disgust were overwhelming, and these harsh realities have permanently scarred my heart and given my the metal outlok of a prisoner of war, falsely accused by traitors in my own country!!MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by sukoi on December 14, 2003 at 12:34:28 PT
FoM
You are quite welcome! Now, I've got something that I’d like to say; I absolutely love CNews, I read it every day several times a day. I wish that everyone in the world knew about CNews, as I’m sure that many minds could/would be changed. With your help, I have been able to change at least two minds in the last month or so. You and all of the people here are top-notch compassionate individuals and it comes through loud and clear in your/their comments. All of you are doing an outstanding job! Now if we could just get the word out about CNews and change some more minds!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 14, 2003 at 11:52:52 PT
Thank you sukoi
Thank you. I find it beneficial for related articles to be posted like you just did. The one article is a snipped source and that way people can read it and it saves me extra work. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by sukoi on December 14, 2003 at 11:44:26 PT
The Constitution
I have a question to pose to all of you about the Constitutionality of all of this: Under what authority is the federal government able to prohibit any substance from use by the American people? Has this ever been considered by the Supreme Court? The way I see it, since it is not granted that specific authority within the Constitution that decision is to be left to the states and the people under the tenth amendment. Am I missing something here?FoM, since this is a slow day for news as you said, maybe one or two of these might help fill the void!Marijuana advocate's DNA hearing put offhttp://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m121403n.htmSuspect arrested by narcotics task forcehttp://www.lmtonline.com/news/s7.htmTwelve arrested on drug chargeshttp://www.theeagle.com/region/localregional/121403drugbusts.phpCode inspection turns into pot busthttp://www.vvdailypress.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1071330017,35257,Pot bust nets 3,500 plantshttp://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2003/1213/local/stories/10local.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on December 14, 2003 at 08:23:04 PT
giving money
"They've been driven back into the streets, alleys and parks, and giving their money to people who do not have their best interests in mind.""...giving money to people who do not have their best interests in mind."
"...giving money to people who do not have their best interests in mind."
"...giving money to people who do not have their best interests in mind."
"...giving money to people who do not have their best interests in mind."
"...giving money to people who do not have their best interests in mind."They're giving tax money to people like John Ashcroft, too.Herr Ashcroft does not have their best interests in mind. A
sure bet and you can bet that Bill Bennett would make out like a bandit.Press on.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by CorvallisEric on December 13, 2003 at 23:10:55 PT
The New Zealand way
Excerpted from "The Press" 13 December 2003 [Eric's notes in brackets]:A wealthy Christchurch businessman who was caught growing cannabis has escaped without a conviction after convincing a High Court judge that he used it medicinally ... admitted cultivating $12,000 [NZ] worth of the drug in a high-tech hydroponics operation ... claimed smoking cannabis was the only way he could mitigate the pain of his chronic bowel condition at night while remaining capable of running his high-tech international business during the day. ... Despite describing [his] offending as "persistent and sophisticated", his honour discharged [him] without conviction on each charge, ruling that the impact on others would outweigh the seriousness of the crime. [He] was ordered to pay $7500 costs and had the name and nature of his business suppressed [but not his name which I have chosen to suppress here].It was on a business trip to the United States in June 1998 that he first began to suffer from a debilitating and painful bowel condition. Nothing prescribed by his doctors ameliorated the pain or the condition."Then I took to using cannabis. It gives incredible relief from the pain," he said."I looked at it as the lesser of two evils. I have 20 people whose jobs depend on me. I'd never used illicit drugs before and only used prescription drugs if I absolutely had to. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2757016a11,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on December 13, 2003 at 21:49:35 PT:
Scheduling Voodoo! Hawaii is no exception!
Aloha and wouldn't you know it, but the administrator for Hawaii State Narcotics Enforcement; Keith Kamita; is in violation of our state's charter which holds him responsible for re-scheduling controlled substances that are proven necessary of change in the status as legal precedent or legislative action call for it. In other words, he is required by law to change the scheduling of cannabis after the legislature amended HRS 712-1240.1 to allow "medical" use of the substance. Thusly it does no longer conform with the schedule definition. Prior to the amendment (12/2000)
marijuana was classified as having "no medical benefit".
The legislature agreed it DOES have benefit. Kamita has shirked his duty since that time and has not re-scheduled cannabis because, in his words , he follows the federal government's lead and as long as they don't recognize cannabis has medical benefits, he will not do what the law requires him to do. Re-schedule. So there you have it. A case of "legal" for us who are registered as medical patients, but no sanity allowed regarding it's distribution to legal patients or it's obvious need to be re-classified immediately! And what about it's court recognition as a legal part of my church for healing? Does our government obey their own laws? Do they serve us still, or are those days over? We need to get sanity, ethics and compassion for people back into the federal government soon! I submit that a new federal marijuana policy is a good way to start. Promote the good instaed of pro-tracting the evil. I pray for this world and Dr. Ehtan Russo, whom I believe is destined to be a integral part of the future of Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute. I pray for peace and prospertiy for all. Good Health needs good medicine. Sacramedicine.(TM)
To Jeff Yablan and Scott Imler - Mele Kalikimaka! Hang in!
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on December 13, 2003 at 21:49:23 PT
Thanks, Dr. Russo
Cannabisnews is the home of the term The Schedule One Lie and we all know that you are an avid reader of cannabisnews and are certainly politically savy on the political issues of cannabis as well as all the medical knowledge.Now that is explicit. You have removed all doubt for some with those few words. Something tells me your presentation in Canada will be interupted by a standing ovation. I look foward to hearing your presentation from pot-tv.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 13, 2003 at 20:55:11 PT
Dr. Russo
I just wanted to say hi and it's good to see you. Nothing profound or anything just a big hello!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on December 13, 2003 at 20:52:07 PT
I've Been Explicit
Schedule I listing for cannabis is a lie.Please see this story:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/17/thread17432.shtmland comment #6 for my stance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Virgil on December 13, 2003 at 20:31:46 PT
Can they not report The Schedule One Lie
Oregon said in there study that the federal classification of cannabis was wrong. It was one of those small states like Vermont that failed to pass a MMJ bill in the legislature in the last year that said the classification of cannabis is wrong. What the hell is wrong with all of the reporters that not only say the classification is wrong but that it is all a lie. Yes, The Schedule One Lie.Sometime about the end of January Dr. Russo will be speaking at some big event sponsored by Marc Emery. He is going to address the Schedule 1 classification of cannabis. I say there is a chance that he will have to call a lie a lie at some point. We will see if he actually calls it The Schedule One Lie. It is in the way of science and medicine and the problem must be identified. If the crowd goes wild, laughing grass will not be the cause. It will be that someone finally speaks the plain and unadulterated truth. So, I say, this article sucks.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment