cannabisnews.com: From The Ground Up





From The Ground Up
Posted by CN Staff on December 01, 2004 at 11:33:22 PT
Editorial
Source: Baltimore Sun
The Supreme Court was understandably skeptical this week of the proposition that states can individually regulate the medical use of marijuana. A hodgepodge of conflicting statutes on how the cannabis plant is to be grown, processed and distributed is impractical. And keeping medicinal marijuana separate from the huge underground market for illegal, recreational weed seems all but impossible.
Further, a decision on behalf of state sovereignty that undercuts Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce would set a dangerous precedent that could be used to unravel such laudable federal protections as civil rights laws.Yet sometimes when the federal government refuses to respond to a common-sense notion arising from the grass roots, the court finds a way to endorse the popular will. That's what should happen in the matter of medical marijuana -- if not in the case now before the court, perhaps on one based on different legal grounds. Cannabis has been used as a medicine for thousands of years and was legally prescribed in this country until 1937, when Congress decided to ban the drug -- making it available only through illegal means. In recent years, though, doctors and patients who have managed to obtain marijuana have found it increasingly valuable in the treatment of AIDS, cancer and other wasting diseases. Angel Raich, one of two women central to the case currently before the court, contends she would be dead from a brain tumor without the pot she smokes every couple of hours. The most orderly fix would be for the Food and Drug Administration to reclassify marijuana for medical use and regulate it on a national basis. Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested during oral arguments this week that a refusal by the FDA of such a request might be grounds for a lawsuit charging the agency with abusing its discretion. An argument could easily be made that the Bush administration -- as represented by Attorney General John Ashcroft and drug czar John P. Walters -- has stubbornly refused to even consider the medicinal value of marijuana, labeling its proponents the dupes of potheads whose true goal is legalizing the drug for recreational use. Such federal obstinacy prompted advocates to work from the ground up, winning permission in a dozen states for legal use of marijuana as a medicine. Maryland took a half-step this year by allowing state judges to consider medical use a defense against charges of marijuana possession. The Supreme Court is now considering whether marijuana grown and possessed -- but not sold -- in a single state is subject to the federal ban because of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Odds are the court will say yes. But the justices will be serving the country well if they also provide a road map for removing an arbitrary prohibition that ignores human suffering in order to impose a view shaped by politics and prejudice instead of science. Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)Published: December 1, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Baltimore SunContact: letters baltsun.comWebsite: http://www.baltimoresun.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmCowards in Washington Ignore Pot's Benefitshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19940.shtmlHigh Court High Anxietyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19935.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by afterburner on December 01, 2004 at 13:39:50 PT
Civil Rights Laws Are Protected by US Constitution
"Further, a decision on behalf of state sovereignty that undercuts Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce would set a dangerous precedent that could be used to unravel such laudable federal protections as civil rights laws."This is blatant fear-mongering whether intended or just repeated out of ignorance. Unlike the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which was declared unConstitutional in 1969, and the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, (which so offended "the Nixon/Mitchell Justice Department’s own handpicked scientific advisory committee [that they] quit en masse in outrage over the irrational classification scheme that was set up." --The Significance of Cannabis in the History of Medicine
http://www.mikuriya.com/cansig.html ), civil rights are protected by numerous Constitutional Amendments, which empower Congress to pass enabling legislation.{Amendments to the US Constitution{13. Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. {15. Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude-- 
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation-- 
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870. {19. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex. 
The Congress shall have power by appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article. 
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920. {24. Section 1. 
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. 
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964. {26. Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. 
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified June 30, 1971.} --From Revolution to Reconstruction: Documents: Bill of Rights http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/constitution/amends.htmBTW, the last Constitutional Amendment was passed in 1992! I guess, Congress forgot how to do it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on December 01, 2004 at 13:16:56 PT
When people think cancer they are going to think c
From now on, when people think of cancer, they are going to think of cannabis.It is pretty cool.It is going to be hard for people to hear the word cancer and not think of cannabis, right away. Like next.Think of how many people are reading this news in just the last few days, that since hearing this news have just gotten a phone call that they or some one they know, has just been diagnosed with cancer.This is going to not stop ringing their bell.Cancer is increasing (not cool) and that will hurt the governments attack on cannabis.Maybe now, people will be less comforable speaking against cannabis. Cannabis prohibition becomes a prejudice. Prohibiting cannabis becomes associated with a reletive having to deal with more pain.Prohibiting cannabis is associated with people that are ignorant of the issue; and now it's out in the open. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on December 01, 2004 at 12:27:02 PT
another good one
The continuing talk of asking the FDA for help & them suing them is total BS, we have tried every possible legal avenue over the last 30 years. All the normal means of legal change have been tried. In some cases, these efforts have stretched into decades because of the federal government's obstructionism. They've blocked or ignored lawsuits (Judge Francis Young, anyone?). They rejected requests for research. They've terminated existing programs. They've forced schwag upon sick people in the few studies they approved.So SC judges, don't blame us, look to your brothers in the Fed and heap your scorn on them. The media always acts so naive, like the current effort being discussed is the first ever. Wake up! The federal tyrants have been crushing us for about 40 years now. How many more LaGuardia commissions do we need, what, are we up to about a dozen now?But no, it's the sick people's fault, wasting the Supreme Court's time when we should be focussing on 30-year, multi-million dollar lawsuits that the government ignores. Damn cancer patients, get it right for crying out loud!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on December 01, 2004 at 11:53:52 PT
The GCW
It's pretty cool isn't it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by The GCW on December 01, 2004 at 11:48:40 PT
This has a ring to it.
People accross the country are getting this...(It's that bulls-eye sound again.)
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment