cannabisnews.com: Mr. Gibbons v. the Constitution





Mr. Gibbons v. the Constitution
Posted by CN Staff on July 12, 2004 at 09:47:51 PT
Editorial
Source: Las Vegas Review Journal 
The Ninth and 10th amendments to the Constitution -- forming the capstones to the Bill of Rights -- are clear. The founders were concerned that those seeking to limit our freedoms and expand government power might some day argue the rights itemized in the first eight amendments are our only rights. It was to nip such pernicious nonsense in the bud that the founders ratified the Ninth Amendment, which declares, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 
What might be some examples of such "retained rights"? Well, the people have a right to travel about freely, for example. No government in America had ever attempted to regulate free travel prior to 1787. So that's a "retained right" -- even though it wasn't specifically named or "enumerated" in the first eight amendments. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress. The federal government can coin money and establish post offices; it can declare war and set up federal courts; it can establish a Navy and buy land for dockyards. But nowhere is it granted any power to restrict medical practice, or the possession or use of medicinal plants. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted on a measure which would have barred the federal government from interfering with states that allow people to use marijuana on the recommendation of a physician. The idea was to honor the popular will in states such as Nevada and California, where the voters have gone to the polls, overwhelmingly and repeatedly authorizing the use of medical marijuana on the advice of a physician. Both Reps. Jon Porter, R-Nev., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., stood by their constituents Wednesday, and voted to tell the federal narcs to butt out. The effort failed, 268-148. What was appalling, on the other hand, was to see Nevada's third representative -- supposed conservative and constitutionalist Jim Gibbons -- rise to vote against his own constituents, against common sense, against medical compassion and against the Constitution. Although he "supports states' rights," Rep. Gibbons declared, "the regulation of narcotics and other drugs falls under the authority of the federal government. It is a matter of public safety and public health." Go back and read Article I, Section 8. There's no authorization for the federal government to concern itself with "public health and safety" -- which is why your police department, your fire department, and your local Health Department are all county or municipal entities. Rep. Gibbons has surprised and shocked many Nevadans. Can it really be he's no constitutionalist at all -- that he's really just in favor of the federal bullies going anywhere they want, doing anything they want, regardless of how they trample the rights of the states and the expressed will of the people? What other extraconstitutional powers would he bestow on our brand new federal police forces under this ginned-up rubric of "public health and safety"? We hesitate even to ask. Note: Favors federal police state over states' rights in medical pot vote.Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Published: Monday, July 12, 2004Copyright: 2004 Las Vegas Review-JournalContact: letters reviewjournal.comWebsite: http://www.reviewjournal.com/Related Articles & Web Site:The Debate: Hinchey - Rohrabacher http://freedomtoexhale.com/dofcomm.htmReefer Madness - The Gazettehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19156.shtmlLawmakers Say No To Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19152.shtmlHouse Opposes Effort by States To Allow MMJhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19149.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #21 posted by gloovins on July 13, 2004 at 19:26:07 PT
Sorry Shrox
Gloovins is not a lawyer but your points from your site are valid but our current poltical and a previous federal class action suit makes this avenue possibly the toughest. Vote anyone but Bush this Nov and I know it sounds cliche but think globally and act locally to get ordinances declaring possession a civil infraction, stuff like that prob is most effective now because of all the federal social-illogicaly retarded thinking, dig? cool -- keep tokin and stay strong! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Agog on July 13, 2004 at 10:55:51 PT
Previous Class Action was Defeated :(
Look back a year maybe two, in Dick Cowan's marijuananews archives. There was a rather large class action suit brought regarding equal protection/equal access and it was defeated. It had to do with the ongoing Federal experimental use recipients and had what I thought were some really good arguments. I don't recall the details, but that would be a great starting point for the research.Study that and learn the arguments/case law applications. The trick here is targeting the "right" brick in the wall, call it combat engineering via litigation.Hope this helps
Agog
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by shrox on July 13, 2004 at 10:32:54 PT
Feedback please
gloovins,Review my 3 reasonshttp://www.shrox.com/3Reasons.htmlI really neeeds some feedback please.shrox
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by gloovins on July 12, 2004 at 23:02:32 PT
It's been done...
MAN IN MEDICAL POT CASE DIES Robert Randall of Sarasota, 53, the first person in the United States to receive legal, medical access to federal supplies of marijuana, died June 2 at his home of AIDS-related complications. Randall made legal and medical history in 1976 when a federal court ruled that his use of marijuana for treatment of his glaucoma was a medical necessity. "This was the first time that the common law concept of necessity was applied to a medical condition," said Randall's wife, Alice. "But two years later the government terminated his access to marijuana despite evidence that he would go blind." He sued for reinstatement of the drug and won. He kept using marijuana with federal permission until his death. Randall was born Jan. 23, 1948, in Sarasota and received bachelor's and master's degrees in speech and rhetoric from the University of South Florida. He developed glaucoma in his teens and an ophthalmologist told him in the early 1970s that he would be blind within a few years. He never went blind, however. In a February 1999 Herald-Tribune interview, he recalled the night he realized the benefits of marijuana: He was relaxing in his apartment, smoking a marijuana cigarette a friend had given him. Looking out the apartment windows, he realized that the telltale halo around a nearby street light had disappeared. He grew his own plants until he was arrested and prosecuted. He then underwent exhaustive tests that proved no other glaucoma drug available lowered his intraocular pressure and halted the deterioration of his eyesight. Randall used that argument in appealing to the federal government to gain legal access to marijuana. In 1981, Randall and his wife founded ACT, Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, the first nonprofit organization dedicated to reforming laws prohibiting medical marijuana use. Randall drafted legislation calling for a federal program of controlled access to the drug. The legislation was introduced in Congress, but failed. In the early 1990s, Randall concentrated on the medical use of marijuana by those afflicted with AIDS and established the Marijuana AIDS Research Service, or MARS, which helped AIDS patients apply for access to marijuana. The efforts provided the basis for AIDS patients to access promising but unapproved drugs such as AZT. After initially approving dozens of marijuana requests, the federal government closed the program and cut off the only means of legal, medical access to marijuana in the country. However, Randall and seven others who had brought their cases to the courts continued to receive federal supplies of marijuana. Public outrage at the closure of the MARS program led to state ballot initiatives such as California's referendum in 1996 that allowed cooperatives to distribute marijuana to patients with chronic illnesses such as AIDS, multiple sclerosis and cancer. But on May 14, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law controlling narcotics makes no exception for therapeutic use of the drug. Randall's wife said he and the seven others who had been granted use of marijuana were not affected by the ruling, though other users were. "Robert was quite upset but not surprised by the decision," his wife said, "because the concept of medical necessity, which is how he won his case in 1976, is a very strict legal determination and the people in California were essentially a marijuana supermarket. We would have have preferred having marijuana being made available through a doctor's prescription." In 1999 Randall and his wife chronicled their battle to legalize marijuana for medicinal use in an autobiographical book, "Marijuana Rx: The Patient's Fight for Medicinal Pot." Lyn Nofziger, a prominent Republican and former director of communication and speech writer in the Reagan administration, wrote the forward for their book. Nofziger's family had turned to marijuana when his daughter was fighting the effects of chemotherapy for lymph cancer. After growing up in Sarasota, Randall moved to Washington, D.C., in 1971. He returned to Sarasota in 1995.See, he won when it came to "common law" back in the 1970's that's what started this "investgational federal study" It can & should be pointed out that no "studies" have been done with either their Mississippi shwag the distribute or the patients whom get it until independant doctors finally confirmed it's inferior quality -- and posted pics on the internet & it had seeds and all -- what a waste of our tax dollars!. But, the legal "medical necessity" defense was asserted and upheld in the courts and if I am not mistaken, it's the reason that approx 8 persons still receive the US gov't schwag. Part of the suit could include the inferior quality actually hurts the patient more. A stronger medical cannabis requires less burnt plant. It should also include vaporization and this much safer than smoke alternative. Something the US gov't -- if they truly cared about these investigational studies patients, would/should pursue with vigor if they truly are worried about "crude smoking" ala Dr? Barfwell.A point in the class action suit should surley bring this case up however Raich v Ashcroft may clarify the states that have legalized med mj. Finally maybe one of the final pillars of CP will either fall or get much stronger -- the Raich decision nxt year will HUGE people...we'll see if the Supreme Court of our land trusts its citizens and respect the will of the People of the respective states or if our so called "representitives" in congress know it all & can pass a federal law that cages me for using/growing/possesing one of "God"'s (which "we trust") plants.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by breeze on July 12, 2004 at 22:54:05 PT
how to get started with a suit-
what about approaching the NORML chapters? I have heard some people say negative things in the past about how NORML does nothing more than sell t-shirts and ask for donations (which is not true) but the chapters in my state lobby every week on the statehouse steps. Its a constant battle for them, but why not approach NORML and other "magazines" sympathetic to our cause? The reason I even hint at something negative about NORML reflects on a comment a few people made to me a few years back- "its been thirty years and they ain't done nuthin' yet..."- of course I wanted to say something to those guys like "well maybe you should try helping them a little bit by writing some letters.."- but I have now seen where THAT gets something accomplished. NOTHING in this WORLD is better at getting the attention of a group or individual than a MAJOR lawsuit- PERIOD!!!I said somewhere a few months ago that there should be more unity among groups on such a common subject- this seems like the logical place to begin. Approach any one who would benefit from such a lawsuit, and I am certain there are many- even if they could just contribute a dollar toward the case itself it could work couldn't it? I mean all the fat cats in DC so easily wrote off states rights in favor of federal, isn't there some method of retribution for such an act, other than trying to get the guy voted out of office for being just plain ignorant?There are thousands of sick and dying people in this country alone who could benefit from easily attainable marijuana, if not that, then the freedom to grow their own medicine. Consider what the forefathers did in 1773- the tea was taxed, so to rebel against the laws and taxes the people dumped the tea into the harbour. They saw the inequality of that issue, much as we do in this issue- what else would work?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by siege on July 12, 2004 at 22:01:44 PT
mmj
To start: JERUSALEM- the best available protection against nerve gas attack comes from an Israeli- made synthetic equivalent of marijuana, U.S. military experiments have shown.In U.S. Army tests,rats injected with Dexanabinol, a chemical substitute for hashish.
where more then 70 percent less likely to suffer epileptic seizures or brain damage after exposure to sarin and other nerve gases, according to results published in the Israeli press. June 05, 1998- Scripps Howard News Service.
 
01 Jan, 1999 The US National Institute of Health-
suggest that THC and cannabidiol, both compounds found in marijuana, can protect cells by acting as Antoxidants, and could be useful in the treament and prevenion of stroke, heart attacks, and neurodegenerative diseases.USNIofH review the medical uses of marijuana, called Dexanabinol "the most medically significan use every made of marijuana.human clinical tests about 1000 patients involved over two years According to US medical investment analysts. showed no serious side effects when administered.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 20:37:57 PT
Just a Comment
I appreciate all the comments. I don't have any suggestions to add but what you all are doing is what I call brain storming. Brain storming is a good thing. That's how ideas can turn into action.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by shrox on July 12, 2004 at 20:09:23 PT
My Reasons
Hey this is my suit! Just joking. I already have a court case now over my 215, CHP wrote my three tickets, all baseless.
I want to get this ended! That is why I suggested this. Here is what I have started as an argument:http://www.shrox.com/3Reasons.html
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by L7 on July 12, 2004 at 19:40:48 PT
Another thing
A lawsuit of this magnitude would cost major...major dollars. I am fairly optimistic though that guys like George Soros (with maybe billions) may get on board here. He has spent huge amounts of money trying to get m.j. legalized as well as trying to get Bush out of office.Just a thought.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by L7 on July 12, 2004 at 19:36:42 PT
Lawsuit
Quite frankly gang...I have zero knowledge about a class action lawsuit but am very serious. I have a hard time believing that this has never been thought of in the past but I just don't know. I am going to send off a letter to the MPP and get their opinion on this. I really do believe that this can be won though. Instead of a handful of fat-cats in the senate with special interests deciding for us...how about a jury in a court of law with a worldwide audience? We all know damn well that our liberties are being stomped on and it is long overdue that we are free to do with our bodies whatever we wish. We can do this.Mike
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by breeze on July 12, 2004 at 18:57:07 PT
I think L7 has an excellent idea
But where should we start?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 16:57:14 PT
 shrox 
I'm glad you registered. I have another board that I put a few Neil Young Pictures and articles on too. I've had the two boards for awhile and they seem stable. If you want to start a thread or anyone gets ideas as to how you would want to work it let us all know here. Making a special forum with a special title for this issue could be handy. Using e-mail is not as effective as a board or at least I don't think so. Sometimes e-mail overwhelms me but a board doesn't. I believe it has private messaging too which I use on a Neil Young Board I visit and is a nice feature. I've been in and out of here all day because I'm getting my new computer up and running. It's really great having two computers that work so if one crashes I won't be down. I really appreciate my new computer. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by shrox on July 12, 2004 at 16:47:39 PT
Join today!
I just signed up on the CannabisNews disussion board.shrox
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 15:02:45 PT
Just a Note
Please feel free to try to organize anything you feel will work. I'm so tired of this taking so long. I have a message forum I don't use but as a spare sort of in case CNews isn't working right. That's when I made it when CNews was down. I could make a private forum for us if anyone wants to talk but not publically. Just let me know. Here's a link to the forum and it's also on my Freedom to Exhale web site.http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/
Cannabis News Discussion Board
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by L7 on July 12, 2004 at 14:43:37 PT
Class action
I am interested as well. Imagine the press a class action lawsuit with about 250,000 plaintiff's would get. There is no way that in a court of law, with all the facts on the table, with the world watching do we lose. The lies need to be exposed once and for all. Let's go!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by shrox on July 12, 2004 at 12:29:22 PT
More on class action
Here is what I hope the case can rest on. I am going to talk to some people tomorrow about any help they can offer.http://www.shrox.com/3Reasons.htmlshrox
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on July 12, 2004 at 12:01:14 PT
Shrox
I want to see a class action lawsuit happen too. I'll help however I can. If you don't have an attorney standing by, I think you're (we're) going to have to start working on it independently first. That means working on drafting the complaint without att'y help at first. As it shapes up I'm confident we will get an att'y involved, but it may be necessary to have the meat of the complaint already formed.Tell me the main points of it (causes of action) and we can go from there?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by shrox on July 12, 2004 at 11:30:27 PT
Help for class action
Hello friends,I am seeking help with a legal action. I have a three pronged argument which I am sure will need some refinement. I would like to see this happen in a way that can represent the most people and have the greatest positive effect.You can respond here.Thanks FoM.shrox
http://www.shrox.com/spiceflow.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on July 12, 2004 at 10:29:20 PT
This is a rare chance for the Supremes
They can make a ruling that will please the pants off the federalists and the liberals at the same time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on July 12, 2004 at 10:08:09 PT
State Govt's
hate the referendum process. It comes dangerously close to true democracy - i.e., rule by the people & for the people, which is of course directly against 90% of what they do.They'll take every opportunity to make the process harder.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 12, 2004 at 09:59:43 PT
LVRJ Article on Initiatives in Nevada
Editorial: Initiative RulesMonday, July 12, 2004 Secretary of State Dean Heller warns three more initiatives may be tossed off November's ballot due to arcane regulations concerning petition signatures. At risk are campaigns to have voters decide whether possession of an ounce or less of marijuana should be legalized, whether insurance rates shall be rolled back 20 percent, and whether limitations on attorney fees should be prohibited. The problem, according to Mr. Heller, is that on many petition pages, circulators failed to have a "document signer" -- someone who signed the petition -- also sign an affidavit asserting that others who signed the petition are registered voters. That step is required by Nevada law if the petition passer is not a registered voter. Different procedures apply if the petition circulator is a registered voter. But why? How would someone seeking signatures out on the sidewalk really know if signers are registered to vote? Don't they just take the signer's word? In which case, of what real use is their "affidavit"? Isn't this why signatures are spot-checked for validity rates? If there's no penalty for signing an affidavit when it turns out a single signature is invalid, why go through all the rigmarole? Some minimal safeguards must be retained to avoid fraud and to make sure voters' time (and public funds) aren't wasted on proposals that haven't met a minimal preliminary test of public support. But the next Legislature needs to simplify petition rules, eliminating arcane and obscure requirements. The petition rules should be simple, straightforward, and easy to follow.Copyright: Las Vegas Review-Journal 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment