cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Medical Pot Posted by CN Staff on July 02, 2004 at 21:54:47 PT Union-Tribune Editorial Source: Union Tribune Angel Raich and Diane Monson had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would decline to review a decision last December by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that sanctioned their production and use of marijuana for ostensible medical purposes. However, the high court agreed this week to hear the Bush administration's appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling, much to the disappointment of the two California women, as well as marijuana advocates from San Francisco to San Diego. That's because the 9th Circuit ruling has been the marijuana movement's biggest legal victory. And a reversal by the nation's highest court could throw out California's eight-year-old medical marijuana law, not to mention similar laws in eight other states. But the time has come for the justices to settle, once and for all, whether states have the power to enact laws, like California's Proposition 215, that clearly clash with federal anti-drug laws. The matter appeared settled in 2001, when the Supreme Court ruled, 8-0, that there was no medical marijuana exception to the federal Controlled Substances Act or the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The former classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance with a high potential for abuse. The latter requires that a drug be scientifically proven safe and effective before it can be used for medicinal purposes. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/medpot.htmSource: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)Published: July 1, 2004 Copyright: 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.Contact: letters uniontrib.comWebsite: http://www.uniontrib.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. John Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmTranscript: Supreme Court & MMJhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/kampia.htmCourting Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19122.shtmlMedical Marijuana: A Nation Gone To Pot? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19121.shtmlProtecting Patients' Rights http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19104.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on July 03, 2004 at 11:41:06 PT: And to answer your first question: Yes, eventually, the Monson/Raich decision, if allowed to let stand, spells the eventual end of ALL cannabis prohibition, for the cornerstone of it *a priori* ASSUMES *inter*State commerce. The response so far from the ONDCP makes that quite clear that they ALWAYS make that assumption. A ruling in favor of the 9th Circuit Court and Monson/Raich forces the necessity to *prove* such commerce. And unless someone is caught in the act, such proof would be exceedingly hard to acquire. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on July 03, 2004 at 11:19:49 PT: FoM, I tend to agree Yes there's plenty of 'importado' floating around, and the closer you get to the Mex border, the more obvious it gets, as you can tell mainly from it's appearence. Namely, 'brickweed'.But I've been noticing that most of what I have received has not been treated as harshly as is often the case. Quite the opposite, as it was both well tended and seemingly fresh. Hence I can only suspect that it was domestic in nature.Another result of squeezing the balloon. Choke off cross-border supplies, and enterprising Americans take up the slack. Squeeze here, bulge there. Squeeze there, bulge *that* way. Squeeze *that* way, bulge out in *this* direction.Only someone severely 'mentally challenged' could find this amusing. As for myself, I look at all the lives ruined, the money being wasted and resources being diverted from more worthy efforts and I can't help but think that 'mentally challenged' is being too kind... [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 03, 2004 at 08:44:07 PT kaptinemo Since in reality most homegrown cannabis doesn't leave the state should it change the law for even non medical users?Most pot came from other countries years ago but I don't think that's the case anymore. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on July 03, 2004 at 08:06:42 PT The era of American dominance is over Serena Willaims had her butt kicked up and down Wimbledon by a teenage girl from Russia.I have a feeling that most of the global audience watching the match rooted for the non-American. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by goneposthole on July 03, 2004 at 07:02:30 PT do as I say, not as I do Isn't that what the Bush administration really wants the Supreme Court to do? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on July 03, 2004 at 05:28:11 PT: Another lazy scribbler The author(s) of this have not done their homework at all.The issue is whether non-commercial growing for personal medical use with no *inter*State commerce involved is legal under the Constitution. The issue is NOT Federal supremacy as relating to the States. The issue is whether the Commerce Clause remains unchanged since the Founders first penned it. Since the Commerce Clause is only to govern commercial transactions BETWEEN 'the several States', not WITHIN them, it is crystal clear. No trans-State commerce = no regulation. No Fed interference. Period. Under a strict interpretation milieu as we are supposed to have with (ahem) 'conservative' Supremes, it becomes another exercise in decorum, not substance.The Supreme's job is an easy no-brainer, a 5 minute write up not requiring much thought. And you know what's funny? The 'strict interpretation' crowd usually is comprised of law 'n' order' types who don't want any tampering with the Constitution. They say it is a 'dead' document, meaning it is unchangeable, immutable. It says what it says, and nothing more. Yet it's a twisting of the very meaning of the Commerce Clause, backed up by the most specious of reasoning, that began the mess to begin with. It automatically assumes unproven premises. It *assumes* commerce when the reality is that most of ANY cannabis that is produced within a State never leaves it. This has been especially true since 9/11 and the tightening of the borders has caused domestic production to increase exponentially.The Supremes are being given a chance to redeem themselves in the eyes of TRUE conservatives (the NeoCon variety are conservative in name only) by adhering to the literal 'letter of the law' and hold the 9th Circuit's ruling as valid.In closing, I'd just like to say that I wish I could be as sloppy in my work as whoever penned this dreck is and still be paid... [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on July 02, 2004 at 23:15:40 PT: Non-commercial vs. Commercial medical distribution Aloha, I am glad this question will been acted on soon by the Supreme Court, but I am ready to stay the course either way it is decided. Should the court find AGAINST medical use and state's legal right to decide, our religious right to healing, worship and prayer will remain within compliance. I am blessed to have received validation in the courts and the return of high-grade "sacramedicine" (TM) by court order (one oz.) The government is only as good as what it can do for us. (NOT AGAINST US!) Remain faithful and check the credentials of the so-called "cannabis minstries" sprouting up like weeds out there. Many are fictitious and abusing the sacred priviledge. Blessings on the sincere, legitimate and mandated ones. Hopefully the scammers will be exposed. Sincerely: Rev. Jonathan Adler/ Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute East Hawaii Religion of Jesus Church. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment