cannabisnews.com: Reefer Madness Reefer Madness Posted by CN Staff on July 09, 2004 at 09:54:26 PT Editorial Source: Gazette We’re disappointed that the U.S. House of Representatives failed on Wednesday to protect users of medicinal marijuana from the long arm of the Bush administration’s Justice Department, which has vowed to keep punishing caregivers that prescribe it, even when such use is permitted by state law. This action also undermines the freedom of states to determine for themselves whether such uses are appropriate. By 268-148, the House rejected a measure that would have barred the federal government from meddling in state medical marijuana laws — leaving nine states that have approved them, including Colorado, suspended in a sort of legal limbo. It also means that citizens whose suffering could be alleviated with the help of cannabis will continue living under a cloud of uncertainty and fear, in order to satisfy the federal government’s own, far more dangerous addiction to control and power, justified by an often irrational anti-drug crusade. The U.S. Supreme Court next fall will take up the constitutionality of state medical marijuana laws. But Congress could have made the issue moot, expressing solidarity with popular opinion and the principles of federalism, by passing the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Co-sponsored by California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative Republican, and New York Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat, the amendment would have stipulated that no funds appropriated to the Department of Justice be used to prevent certain states “from implementing state laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those states.” This was exactly the right way to handle this issue. Congress, and specifically the House of Representatives, is constitutionally authorized to control the federal purse strings, and the place to set policy by directing how funds can or cannot be spent. In our federalist system of government, health, safety and medical scope-of-practice decisions have traditionally been made at the state level. Particularly when there are no interstate commerce implications, the national government has only limited authority to interfere in such decisions. No medical marijuana laws have been challenged on the claim that federal law holds supremacy in this field. None of those opposing such laws has wanted to take the risk of making this argument in court. But the Drug Enforcement Administration, until recently enjoined by federal courts, did undertake an aggressive campaign of arresting and trying medical marijuana users under federal law, often in circumstances in which defendants were prevented from mentioning in court that they were medical patients acting in compliance with state law. That effort to nullify state laws approved by the voters was an egregious abuse of federal power. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment should have been attractive both to conservatives and populists, because it upholds federalism and opposes the misuse of federal power, while reflecting polls showing that 75-80 percent of the American people, across party lines, support the medical use of marijuana. Rep. Joel Hefley voted against the measure, siding with those who argue that permitting the use of medical marijuana runs contrary to other federal anti-drug efforts. But we’ve just never bought the argument that pot use will suddenly skyrocket simply because states elect to allow the medicinal use of marijuana under a limited set of circumstances. There simply seems to be no constituency in this country — beyond a few DEA officials and hidebound politicians — for jailing cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS and other patients for using a substance that relieves their suffering. It’s a shame that a majority in Congress remain behind the curve, in terms of both science and public opinion, on this issue. Note: Non drug policy portion of article removed.Note: Federal addiction to power a greater danger than state medical marijuana laws. Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)Published: July 9, 2004Copyright: 2004 The GazetteContact: gtop gazette.comWebsite: http://www.gazette.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmLawmakers Say No To Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19152.shtmlHouse Opposes Effort by States To Allow MMJhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19149.shtml Feds' Wayward Path on Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19142.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by FoM on July 10, 2004 at 09:05:08 PT Max Flowers I didn't respond because I wouldn't have any idea how to go about it. I thought they already tried a class action suit a few years ago. It might have been before CNews too but I could be wrong. Maybe someone will remember. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on July 10, 2004 at 08:59:50 PT No interest in the class action suit eh? Shall I interpret the near-total lack of response to this revolutionary idea as an indication of why we may never win this fight? Are the prohibs right when they laugh at us and say we potheads can't get it together so why worry?Or maybe there is actually nowhere near the number of readers of this site as I had thought. Pretty disappointing... I tend to think that if it can't get started here, it won't get started at all. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on July 09, 2004 at 12:43:05 PT: Unrelated: Calling all Monty Pythonists! "And now for something completely different..."Eric Idle of the famed comedy troupe has produced a very witty (and VERY naughty; the F-word at every chance) ditty concerning the FCC, Howard Stern, Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney, the EPA, etc.http://pythonline.com/plugs/idle/FCCSong.mp3He sings what I growl every day... [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 11:42:25 PT Friendly Reminder: Tommy Chong on The Tonight Show I sure hope that Jay Leno allows Tommy Chong enough time to speak his mind. I also hope that Tommy Chong is free to speak.http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/index.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by fearfull on July 09, 2004 at 11:38:51 PT Max I think we should base it on Religious persucution and cultural genocide. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Max Flowers on July 09, 2004 at 11:16:25 PT Posting this here because it's the top thread I posted this in an older comment thread and am afraid it may go unnoticed so I will post it here. It is my reposnse to a poster named L7 who said that we should pursue a class action lawsuit: ---------------------------------------- I've been saying that for years. A class action lawsuit on a massive scale (hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs). That will get attention to the issue of a kind that all the verbal activism in the world might not. Let's organize it.Who is willing to work on drafting the complaint? Is there an attorney among us? Mr. Zuckerman? Maybe Richard Glen Boire will do it. I can contact him. Ashcroft/DOJ was successfully sued on the issue already, so we know it can be done. I have past experience as a paralegal and private investigator so I can help as well. How about 100,000 plaintiffs instead of two. Would that get their attention? Getting people to sign on as valid complainants will be the least of the difficulties.The goal should be not money damages but rather some sort of substantive action on the issues: congressional hearings, or something that will get this aired out properly once and for all. We all know that with all the facts laid out on the table fairly, we will prevail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 11:12:12 PT This Link is New To Me I went to my little fun to have message board and saw a new banner ad. Drug War Rant was there and Marijuana Pro - Con and this one. I thought others might like to check it out.http://medmarijuana.meetup.com/?a=reprise CNews & Freedom To Exhale Message Board [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on July 09, 2004 at 10:33:45 PT They don't think drug policy is an issue! This makes me upset -- drug policy is not on their list of issues:http://www.ucsusa.org/Well, since they all have to sign Drug Free Propgandist and Informant agreements to get their funding, maybe that's one area where they are content to allow the country to be ruled by ignorance, greed, and pseudoscience. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 09, 2004 at 10:10:47 PT You Know Something EJ? The news is slowing up which happens this time of year so I've been thinking. I will vote to defeat Bush but it still leaves an empty feeling inside. I guess what I mean is the harm that has been done by Bush and his administration really bothers me. Will he be charged with a crime over this in time? I guess I think it should be considered. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on July 09, 2004 at 09:59:01 PT FoM, the scientists are rising up against Bush Group: Science policy swayed by politics 4,000 scientists, 48 Nobel laureates join protestFriday, July 9, 2004 Posted: 10:08 AM EDT (1408 GMT)WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Bush administration is still packing scientific advisory panels with ideologues and is imposing strict controls on researchers who want to share ideas with colleagues in other countries, a group of scientists charged on Thursday.The Union of Concerned Scientists said in a report that the administration's policies could take years to undo and in the meantime the best and the brightest would be frightened away from jobs in the National Institutes of Health and other government institutions.The union, chaired by Dr. Kurt Gottfried, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cornell University, said more than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, had joined the call for "restoration of scientific integrity in federal policymaking.""I don't think one should simply assume that the problem ... will go away if there is a new administration in office," Gottfried told reporters in a telephone briefing."What is happening under this administration is a cultural change. We have to address this cultural change and fix it."It's on CNN. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on July 09, 2004 at 09:57:43 PT This impresses me because Colorado Springs is not the most liberal part of Colorado, it's the part that the anti-gay law came from. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment