cannabisnews.com: Supremes on Pot










  Supremes on Pot

Posted by CN Staff on December 01, 2004 at 14:28:48 PT
By Ann Harrison 
Source: S.F. Bay Guardian 

California Medical Marijuana patients Diane Monson and Angel Raich asked the U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 29 to halt federal raids against medical cannabis patients and their caregivers. Saying she would die in agony if federal authorities seized her cannabis, Raich's attorneys pleaded with the justices to limit the power of the federal government to ignore state laws that allow doctors to recommend cannabis for their patients. 
"I ask for the court not only to have mercy but to save my life," said Raich, an Oakland resident, who appeared pale and drawn on the steps of the courthouse. "Please do not take my mother away from me," said Raich's 16-year-old daughter, Erica, at a press conference after the hearing. But the medical marijuana activists received a cool reception from the justices, most of whom appeared unmoved by descriptions of their suffering, which was scarcely mentioned during the hearing. Justices questioned whether the patients' use of medical cannabis was truly noncommercial, whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should regulate medical marijuana, and what impact unchallenged state marijuana laws will have on the number of patients and price of marijuana on the black market. Regulating Marijuana Like WheatThis case turns on whether the federal government exceeded its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce when the medical cannabis is grown entirely in state and given to patients for free. The Supreme Court had already decided in 2001 that the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative could not distribute medical cannabis to patients under a "medical necessity" exemption to federal drug laws. California was the first of 10 states to pass a medical cannabis law when voters approved the 1996 Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215), allowing patients and their caregivers to use, possess, and cultivate medical cannabis with a doctor's recommendation. But after Drug Enforcement Agency agents raided Monson's Oroville home in 2002 and seized her six marijuana plants, she and Raich asked the court for an injunction preventing federal authorities from arresting or suing them or seizing their medical cannabis and other assets. In March 2003 a federal judge in San Francisco denied their request for a preliminary injunction to halt raids against medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. But that decision was reversed in December 2003 by a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which directed the lower court to grant the patients their preliminary injunction. The majority of the court ruled that Congress doesn't have the power under the Commerce Clause (from which it derives its authority over narcotics) to regulate medical cannabis where no money changes hands and there is no interstate commerce involved. The Appeals Court precedent has effectively blocked the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients in the eight Ninth Circuit states that have medical marijuana laws. The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that it has the right to regulate state commercial activity that is part of a larger economic enterprise – such as the estimated $10.5 billion national market for marijuana. During the hearing, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner acknowledged that the case involved locally grown cannabis and "none of this homegrown for medical use marijuana will be on any interstate market." She also pointed out that the practice of medicine was "an area traditionally regulated by the states." "There is nobody buying or selling anything here," Justice Ruth Ginsberg agreed. The guiding case cited by both the government and patients is the 1942 ruling Wickard v. Filburn involving a wheat farmer who exceeded federal regulations on how much wheat he could cultivate. The court ruled that the government could regulate his crop even though it was consumed only by his own family. Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in the hearing that according to this precedent, locally grown marijuana could be regulated like this wheat. "It doesn't have to be bought elsewhere," he said. Randy Barnett, a Boston University law professor who is representing the patients, argued that those using medical cannabis under California law had only a "trivial impact" on the larger interstate market for marijuana. Barnett argued that the medical marijuana in this case falls outside commercial drug activity and protecting these patients doesn't prevent federal agencies from using the Controlled Substances Act against other commercial drug transactions. "It's a narrow class of people growing it for themselves or having a provider grow it for them," Barnett said. This prompted a discussion of just how many medical marijuana patients there were in California, leading Justice David Souter to throw out an estimate of 100,000, which had been cited by a patients' rights group. Souter expressed concern that the number of patients might increase if federal authorities were held back. But this isn't a concern to Raich, 39, who suffers from a range of ailments including an inoperable brain tumor, nonepileptic seizures, and a wasting syndrome that has pared her down to 98 pounds. Raich and her daughter live in Oakland with Raich's husband, Robert Raich, who served as an attorney in the case. Monson, 47, uses medical cannabis to combat chronic pain. Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned how many patients were actually growing and how many were purchasing their medicine. "Can't we infer from the enormous commercial market that possession of the drug is proof of participation in the market?" Kennedy said. Justice Scalia also looked for examples where mere possession infers participation in a market that can be regulated by the federal government. "Congress has done this in other areas, like with endangered species," Scalia said. "You can't have eagle feathers, no matter where you got them, for example." Should The FDA Regulate?Expressing irritation that the patients hadn't instead taken their appeal to the FDA, Justice Stephen Breyer seemed unaware that the agency had considered the question years ago. "Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum," Breyer announced from the bench. But on the same day the court heard the patients' case, it was announced that the Washington, D.C., Federal Court of Appeals struck down a lawsuit by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies seeking to expedite DEA approval of two applications for access to medical research cannabis that have been languishing for 17 months. MAPS filed lawsuits against the DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services-National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Drug Abuse claiming that the government had engaged in an "unreasonable delay" in responding to its applications to NIDA to purchase 10 grams of marijuana for a medical cannabis vaporizer study and its application to the DEA to import 10 grams of research marijuana from the Dutch Office of Medical Cannabis. Acting solicitor general Paul Clement, who argued the government's case, emphasized during the Supreme Court hearing that under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is a drug with "no approved medical use" and a high potential for abuse. He said that federal efforts to suppress the national black market for marijuana are frustrated by "any little island of lawful possession." The concerns of some justices are unknown. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has supported states rights, was characteristically silent during proceedings. Justice John Paul Stevens said during the hearing that while Chief Justice William Rehnquist was absent due to his treatment for thyroid cancer, he will participate in this case. If Rehnquist votes, the patients need the support of five justices to carry their case. Barnett emphasized that even if the patients' lose their case, state medical marijuana laws would still stand. A ruling is expected this summer. Note: High court hears medical marijuana case involving Oakland resident. Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian, The (CA)Author: Ann HarrisonPublished: Dec. 01 - Dec. 07 2004 • Vol. 39, No. 09 Copyright: 2004 San Francisco Bay GuardianContact: letters sfbg.comWebsite: http://www.sfbg.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:MAPShttp://www.maps.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm From The Ground Uphttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19942.shtmlCowards in Washington Ignore Pot's Benefitshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19940.shtmlMarijuana Research Lawsuits To Be Filedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19219.shtmlScientists Say Marijuana Research Blocked http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19210.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #54 posted by Hope on December 15, 2004 at 05:40:45 PT
Oh! It did!
GCW, I repeat, "Absolutely excellent!" and it did get ink!Thank you and the Lord, who guides you!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Hope on December 15, 2004 at 05:37:33 PT
GCW
Absolutely excellent! I hope it sees ink!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by FoM on December 14, 2004 at 20:13:41 PT
The GCW
Thank you for your continued LTE. I never have felt able to write LTEs and I glad people like you do.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by The GCW on December 14, 2004 at 19:48:50 PT
Letter to the Editor,
US CA: LTE: The Lord loves pot 
Newshawk: The GCW
Pubdate: Dec. 15, 2004
Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian, The (CA)
Copyright: 2004 San Francisco Bay Guardian
Contact: letters sfbg.com
Website: http://www.sfbg.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/387
Author: Stan White 
Viewed at: http://www.sfbg.com/39/11/x_talkback.html 
The Lord loves potI agree with limiting the federal government's ability to cage sick citizens for using cannabis ["Supremes on Pot," sfbg.com, 12/1/04] and wanted to add, further and most important, that it is biblically correct to stop caging humans for using the plant cannabis. Our unwavering God said He created all the seed-bearing plants and said they were all good on literally the very first page of the Bible. I would also like to see clergy speak up for Christ, God, our Father, on this issue, since Jesus Christ risked going to jail to heal the sick. The entire Bible is against cannabis prohibition. Example: 1 John 3:17, "But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" The Bible describes who will even propose such prohibition as those who "fall away from the faith," in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. http://www.sfbg.com/39/11/x_talkback.html 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Hope on December 03, 2004 at 16:05:19 PT
Dr. Ganj
I read your limerick last night. I was stunned. This must have happened when I was under the weather. I'm so sorry that you've been wounded and bled and been imprisoned in this horror of government and societal insanity. I am so grateful that you are still with us. God bless you, Dr. Ganj.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by afterburner on December 03, 2004 at 07:37:36 PT
Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Canada link #46,47
Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Canada - Legal Actions [Updated Version] http://www.freedomofchoiceinhealthcare.ca/FOCHC-Legal-Actions.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 21:59:22 PT
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS 
Official Site:CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/*****Unofficial Site:American Holistic Health Association (AHHA) - Codex Alimentarius
http://ahha.org/codex.htm{Codex Alimentarius (Food Code) {Is this a threat to our continued access
to nutritional supplements in the U.S.? 
 {Have you heard about Codex, but have no idea what it is or why you should even care? {Codex Alimentarius is creating dozens of international trade standards. One of the most controversial documents is entitled{Codex Draft Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements http://ahha.org/CodexGuidelines.htm }
 *****Unofficial Site:The Dr. Rath Health Foundation
http://tinyurl.com/5prot 
{The Documentation About "Codex Alimentarius"{What are the aims of the Codex Alimentarius Commission?{Constructed by the pharmaceutical industry, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is a self-proclaimed expert organization that has allied with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Food Organization (FAO). From the beginning, this was done with the intention of passing regulations and laws to protect the global pharmaceutical market.{Of the 30 committees using the title "Codex Alimentarius," those involved with food supplements and vitamins are of particular interest to the pharmaceutical industry. The central committee is the "Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses." A puppet of the pharmaceutical industry, this committee has only been concerned with one topic since the middle of the 1990's: how to prevent vitamins and other food supplements from causing the collapse of the markets for beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, cholesterol lowering products and other widely superfluous pharmaceutical preparations.{By far, Germany is the biggest exporter of these dubious pharmaceutical products and nowhere else in the world exists such a bond between the pharmaceutical industry and politics. Therefore it is no surprise that the Government of the German Federal Republic is in charge of this committee, benefiting the pharmaceutical cartel.}*****Unofficial Site:Codex Alimentarius
by William Campbell Douglas II, M.D. 
http://www.medical-library.net/sites/_codex_alimentarius.html{I find it very upsetting that the German proposal before the CODEX commission is being heavily pushed by Hoechst, Bayer, and BASF. These three companies were formed when IG Farben was disbanded after the Nuremberg War Trials because of its role in manufacturing the poison gas used in the Nazi concentration camps.}*****Unofficial Site:American Holistic Health Association (AHHA) - Codex Buchanan ...
http://ahha.org/codexbuchanan.htm*****Unofficial Site:Abuse of Codex Alimentarius Cartel and the Berlin Tribunal.... Can we stop it?
http://www.heall.com/medicalfreedom/codexabuse.html{Part 1 of 8 - On September 17, 1998 a Public Tribunal was held in Berlin against the Pharma-Cartel, Helmut Kohl and other accomplices of this Cartel for planning, committing and assisting mass murder and crimes against humanity. Dr. Matthias Rath, M.D. who led the breakthrough in the control of cardiovascular disease by vitamins, convened this Public Tribunal on the eve of the Codex Alimentarius meeting in this city.{Throughout the 20th century the pharmaceutical industry was built and organized with the goal to control the health care system of nations by systematically replacing natural, non-patentable therapies with patentable and therefore profitable synthetic drugs. The architects of the pharmaceutical industry were unscrupulous entrepreneurs and financiers who, from the very beginning of this industry, had defined the human body and the diseases it hosts as their marketplace. As the result of the systematic take-over of the health care system by nationally and internationally operating pharmaceutical corporations billions of people in almost all countries of the United Nations have been paying trillions of dollars for pharmaceutical drugs that neither prevent diseases nor cure them. The governments, the economic and social sectors of all industrialized countries are currently held hostage by the ill-conceived and criminal practices of pharmaceutical corporations. A particular example is the Federal Republic of Germany, the leading export nation of such pharmaceutical products in the world. Throughout the 20th century, the German pharmaceutical corporations Hoechst, Bayer and BASF have determined the fate not only of that country but of the entire world.} 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 21:49:18 PT
Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Canada, Part 2
"Articles
In this section, find many different articles related to Freedom of Choice in Healthcare. Many articles are submited from viewers from all over the world:"[Article 1]ENDING THE HEALTH DICTATORSHIP "'Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship... ' Benjamin Rush M.D., Signer of Declaration of Independence, Physician to George Washington. "Benjamin Rush M.D.'s words ring true today. At a time when North Americans are discovering safe and effective alternatives to dangerous pharmaceutical and surgical treatments the Chretien government prepares to enslave Canadians to a 'free' national pharmacare plan. As the foreign pharmaceutical industry sit poised to win the jack pot in the next election Canadians should be asking: why at this time would government enshrine the right of the pharmaceutical industry to profit from our health and disease? And, is there no end to our pharmaceutical 'needs', which have already reached beyond our ability to pay? "[Article 2]FREE TO WORK - UNLESS YOU SELL NATURAL PRODUCTS "In 1987 the Patent and Trademark Office extended patent protection to any 'man-made' 'creature, recognizing life, for the first time, as a manufacture. Today, thousands of microorganisms, and plants have been patented, as well as six animals. More than 200 genetically engineered animals are awaiting patent approval.' ( The End Of Work, By Jeremy Rifkin, J.P. Putnam's Sons) "While the natural health industry fast becomes an illegal business thanks to mounting federal laws that will criminalize natural herbs and botanicals, foreign trans-national industry create patented man-made reproductions. With the Canadian-owned natural health industries out of their way, foreign industry are poised to control the growing market for non-pharmaceutical health care alternatives. New biotechnology nutraceutical partnerships are poised to control the 'patent protected' 'functional food' industry. They will soon have a monopoly on our health once again, as they have had with the pharmaceutical industry - a fed of the past. "FOOD SUPPLEMENTS CRIMINALIZED "The United Nations/GATT/ World Health Organization Codex Alimentaire threatens to deny access to natural supplements for therapeutic and preventative health care on a global scale. But, closer to home Bill C 7 (now called Bill C 8) and the Endangered Species Act (Bill C 65) pose a more immediate threat to our freedom that extends far beyond denying our access to natural supplements. Bill C 8 extends broad new powers to allow the federal government to criminalize natural substances at will without parliamentary review. And, the proposed Bill C 65 is claimed to be protection for endangered species. But, the vaguely defined Bill gives indiscriminate powers to government to expand the definitions of protected species, their habitat and the scope of protection. A recent amendment to the Act broadens the definition of the 'wildlife species' to be protected. 'An animal, plant, or other organism (human beings are organisms!) that is geographically or genetically distinct.' Western Report, March 31, 1997. The vagueness of this clause could expand the scope of government intervention to include any natural plant, and for that matter human beings. Even a population of human beings in the geographic location of Quebec could be considered a 'distinct' society to be classified as an endangered species, based on this vaguely worded Bill. Anyone who tampers with an endangered species could face up to five years in jail and S500, 000.00 fines for killing, harming or harassing endangered species. "FOOD SUPPLEMENTS CALLED DRUGS "In Canada natural supplements have recently been classified as drugs, requiring Drug Identification Numbers DIN) - a new and costly operating cost for manufacturers. A growing list of safe and effective herbs continues to be banned by the Health Protection Branch claiming to protect the public from unscientific and unstandardized natural products. Those manufacturers and retailers selling banned products could face criminal charges, huge fines and jail sentences for 'drug trafficking'. Oddly enough the 1985 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada survey, called Nutraceutical Functional Foods, sought to identify the needs of the Canadian industry for growth in the nutraceutical sector, recognizing the growing trend to self-medication with natural substances. They also identified the need for government assistance in research, regulation and approval of nutraceuticals for disease prevention and treatment. While the federal government lays out the red carpet for the nutraceutical industry with a separate classification called 'functional foods', the natural health industry in Canada will gradually disappear, as natural products are gradually reclassified as illegal drugs. "THE NUTRACEUTICAL PARTNERSHIP "The ideal nutraceutical partnership is described in the Summary Report by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It is biotechnological partnership between ' 'credible', high quality food processors; independent, scientifically credible researchers; the federal government; leading biotechnological and pharmaceutical support'. The report also recommends that they 'drop the 'pharmaceutical' mentality'. Nutraceuticals as functional foods serves to create the appropriate image for an industry recognizing the importance of reputation in business. As the pharmaceutical image and market follows its projected decline the new image is a welcome opportunity. But, the forcible image switch of industries marketing natural (unpatentable) products from food supplements to drugs is hardly an ethical move perpetrated by the Health Protection Branch. "NUTRACEUTICALS CALLED 'FUNCTIONAL FOODS' "The government funded report also describes the types of products with nutraceutical potential. 'all agricultural products have potential, all foods are potential candidates, many, and their all ag biotech based.' But, why are the new patent-protected biotechnologically produced nutraceuticals termed 'functional foods' while the natural unpatentable products they are replacing are termed drugs? "Patentable biotech nutraceuticals are not the same as their natural counterpart which are unpatentable in their natural form( and therefore far less profitable). Rifkin describes the making of a patentable look-a-like. 'By reducing microorganisms, plants, and animals to their constituent building blocks, scientists can begin to organize life as a manufactured process.' Molecular farming in the laboratory allows companies to cross biological barriers in the development of nutraceutical or other living 'products'. According to Rifkin chemical companies are investing heavily in indoor tissue culture production with the plan to remove farming from the soil by the 21st century. Rifkin explains that 'by granting broad patent protection over genetically engineered life forms, the government is giving imprimature to the idea that living creatures are reducible to the status of manufactured inventions, subject to the same engineering standards and commercial exploitation as inanimate objects.' Unfortunately for Canadians there is no labeling requirement for the newly patented genetically engineered plants which are also lurking in our food supply. "WE MUST HAVE SCIENTIFIC PROOF AND STANDARDIZATION"With consumers convinced of their need for government health protection the destruction of the natural health industry in Canada somehow 'seems' inevitable and necessary. After all, we must have scientific proof. We must have standardization. But, the truth is that natural plants, natural foods, and natural animals cannot be standardized. They all have biodiversity. But, man-made chemicals, and bioengineered replications can be standardized. Are we to believe that man-made chemicals and bioengineered replications are better and safer than nature? Are we to believe that safety and efficacy are assured with scientific proof! Are we to believe that a nutraceutical monopoly with their patented products will provide for our health protection? "NATURE MUST BE FEARED"Fear of natural medicines has been perpetuated by the Canadian health care system since inception of the pharmaceutical monopoly in the early 1900's. Since this time health care has slowly evolved from a concentration on solving health problems to a concentration on treating health problems with symptom suppressing drugs. It is no doubt the plague of all monopolies. Without competition and consumer choice, profit is the only motivation. And, today the fear of nature, encouraged by scientific medicine, has expanded to such a degree that many people are afraid to go outside without some kind of chemical protection. Fear of the sun has created a demand for chemical sunscreen. Fear of natural bugs and microorganisms has created a demand for chemical pesticides, and fungicides. Our disgust with 'weeds' (which are often valuable medicinal herbs) has created the demand for chemical 'weed' killers that have become mandatory protocol in some areas. But, could it be that our fears and disgust with nature are unjustified? Could it be that our preoccupation with scientific chemicals is the real threat to our health? We should ask who financed the science of fear that profits the chemical industry? "Science, government, dieticians, doctors, pharmacists and pharmaceutical companies still call food supplement promoters quacks and charlatan. And, yet government and transnational industry have been planning since at least 1985 to introduce 'scientific' nutraceuticals. But, does government have the right to destroy our Canadian natural supplement industry with legislation to ensure its' demise? The treatment of this one industry foreshadows the future of Canada. Which natural resource based industry is to be next. And, when they are all gone what will follow. Together we can stop the transnational bid against our economic freedom here in Canada. Educate others, friends, the media, and elected officials. It is time we all stood up for our freedom before there is no one left to do it. "[Article 3]Foods or 'Quasi-Drugs' by David W. Rowland "There is unanimous agreement that something must be done to stop the HPB[Health Protection Branch] from destroying the natural health products industry. If we do nothing, the entire industry may soon be lost. Not everyone agrees as to what it is we need to do, however the only way to stop a bureaucracy out of control is to take away its arbitrary source of power. In this case the power comes from flawed legislation in the Food and Drugs Act that gives the HPB the legal authority to regulate any food or food derivative as a 'drug'. The solution, therefore, is clear. Amend the act so that foods and dietary supplements can nevermore be regulated as drugs. This is the basis of the Foods are Not Drugs Amendment (FNDA). "Instead of the 'Foods are Not Drugs' concept, some individuals and organizations, including pharmaceutical interests, propose putting dietary supplements into a separate regulatory 'quasi-drug’ category, somewhere between foods and drugs. This proposal includes the following key points: -Natural health products must be regulated separately from both foods and drugs. -Natural health products must be subject to pre-market registration. -Only pre-authorized health claims for natural health products are to be permitted. -A new administration needs to be established to oversee the regulation of natural health products. -A new Permanent Board of Experts needs to be set up to establish quality assurance regulations for natural health products. -Financing of the new administration and authority is to be sustained by a product surtax remitted by wholesalers and manufacturers according to audited sales records. -This 'quasi-drug' proposal is strikingly similar to the way the HPB currently regulates dietary supplements. It requires more regulations and more taxation. It is a conciliatory compromise that does little or nothing to protect the long term interests of consumers. It will increase the HPB’s bureaucracy, continue to restrict access to products, and increase the cost of supplements. -Fatal Flaw "A separate regulatory category for natural health products cannot be established without the participation and sanction of the HPB, a bureaucracy that has time and again demonstrated its flagrant disregard for freedom of access to natural health products, and lack of knowledge about those products. Furthermore, unless the Food and Drugs Act is amended, and natural health product- whether in a separate regulatory category or not-can at any moment be classified as a 'drug' by the HPB if someone makes unauthorized health claims for it. According to our current (and outdated) Act, a 'drug' is defined as ‘any substance or mixture of substances manufactured, sold or represented for use in (a) the diagnoses, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in man or animal, (b) restoring, correcting or modifying organic function in man or animal… "What makes a substance a 'drug' is not what it is or what it does but the claims that one makes for it. Oranges become 'drugs' the moment one promotes them for preventing scurvy, as do prunes for constipation, milk for osteoporosis, water for dehydration etc. It does not matter if the claims are true. This subjective definition of 'drug' is the sole source of the HPB’s arbitrary power to take natural health products off the market. The HPB are merely carrying out the mandate given to them by this act. They will continue to abuse this power until the day we change the act and take it away from them."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 21:45:46 PT
Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Canada, Part 1
"Legal ActionsFreedom of Choice in Health Care is currently addressing two issues:1. The arbitrary movement of the Health Protection Branch to remove safe, natural products from the market2. The threat of Codex Alimentarius, and its control by the multinational pharmaceutical companies, in trying to take over the health food supplement industry "AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE".
AnonymousProducts such as amino acids, epa fish oil extract, eyebright, germanium, goldenseal, hawthorn berries, chaparral, chromium picolinate, chamomile, melatonin and many others have all been removed from the Canadian market because 'alleged' health claims are made for them. The honesty and truth of the claims seems to be irrelevant. As an example, it is illegal to claim on a label or product literature that Vitamin C prevents scurvy.... "Consider the following comparison of medical reliability of two 'remedies' per the New England Journal of Medicine, August 22, 1996 which found the drug Proscer for the treatment of benign prostate enlarge-ment to be no more effective than a placebo. Herbal treatment: Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) Drug Treatment: Proscar (finasteride) Cost: Saw palmetto $12.00 per mth Proscar $60.00 per mth Efficacy: Saw palmetto 60% to 90% Proscar 37% to zero Side effects: Saw palmetto none/slight Proscar impotence, decreased libido, ejaculation disorders. If there was less concern about profit, and more openness to traditional and natural health care alternatives, many more patients could be helped at lower cost and with fewer side effects. With escalating health care cost we cannot afford to ignore options that help people. Our purpose is to obtain a just and equalized system in which every individual can freely choose their preferred method of treatment in maintaining their health...."PUBLIC HEATLH CARE IS IN CRISIS! Our present health care system is on the verge of collapse. Costs are escalation, and drug-resistant strains of bacteria are making the threat of new epidemics a reality. There are many contributors to this precarious situation: -The failure to recognize natural and alternative forms of healthcare -The failure to consider the wholistic nature of the human body -The failure to teach nutrition and nutritional body chemistry in our medical schools -The failure to consider the importance of prevention, and the continued reliance on expensive and often dangerous 'silver-bullet' drugs "
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 21:37:01 PT
Your Right to Choose Alternative Medical Treatment
Your Right to Choose Alternative Medical Treatment Is EndangeredThe Codex is a nutrition code engineered by the big drug companies (the German giants the most aggressive) to set worldwide standards for foods, drugs, pesticides and their trade. They are after total control of the supplement market and of herbal meds. The latest German proposal includes the following provisions: 1. No vitamin, mineral, herb or food supplement can be sold for preventative or therapeutic use. 2. None sold as a food can exceed dosage levels set by the Commission. For example, 50 mg of vitamin C is the top dosage sold in Germany today. 3. CODEX regulations for dietary supplements would become legally binding in the USA through the GATT Treaty, which would involve enormous fines in America if we did not comply.
 
4. All new dietary supplements will be banned unless they pass the CODEX approval process. You can imagine what that means. The wording in the Congressional Bill uses the term "harmonization" which means that most senators and congresspersons are likely not aware of the implications. The delegates that make up and decide on the CODEX mandates are made up of 90% of the giant Multi-national Pharmaceutical corporations. The drug companies want to monopolize and create pharmaceutical versions of the Natural healthfood and nutrient business throughout the world. An example of the consequences: possession of DHEA is now a felony in Canada with the same penalty as that for possession of drugs. You could go to jail for having DHEA in your house....Further evidence of Canadian involvement is the HPB (Hocus Pocus Bunch) position on what is or is not a food or a drug. This bunch is either cleverly devious about their support of pharmaceutical concerns or just plain dumb. For example, garlic, ginger, licorice and peppermint are considered to be foods when sold as spices. If a grocery store manager makes claims for their therapeutic effects, they then become drugs via a hocus pocus mechanism which remains to be defined. As it now stands in Canada (and this changes on a regular basis given the current mood, blood sugar level or whims of officials at the HPB) the following list of currently available health food store nutritional supplements are considered nebulously to be either a drug a drug even in the absence of claims or a new drug with claims: Aloe vera, Astragalus, Bilberry Capsicum, Cascara sagrada, Cat's claw , Chamomile, Dong Quai, Echinacea, augustifolia, Echinacea, purpurea, Ephedra (Ma huang), Feverfew, Garlic, Ginger, Ginkgo, biloba, Ginseng, Golden Seal, Gotu, Kola, Hawthorne, Kava Kava, Licorice, Milk, Thistle, Pau D'arco (Taheebo), Peppermint, Psyllium, Sarsaparilla, Saw palmetto, Yohimbe This list is likely to expand over the next two years. If the Codex and the HPB have their way, your favorite supplements will be replaced by expensive, patented, over-the-counter or prescription drugs. Just look what has already happened to amino acids like tryptophan. Once available for under $20 for a bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mgs. at your local health food store, the same tablet is now only available by prescription at a cost of over $120 at your pharmacy. On top of that, in order to get a prescription for tryptophan, you will have to convince your doctor to give you one. This is easier said than done 
simply because most medical doctors have no clue what tryptophan does or believe it to be toxic. Project this shallow thinking on to the herbs listed above and it becomes quite clear that public access to natural remedies will be a thing of the past." --Goodbye To Our Rights http://www.helpinghandconsulting.com/_mformula/00000002.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 19:01:28 PT
afterburner
That's ok. You don't need to look it up. It's not important to know. Pharmaceutical companies are into pills and not plants because it's easier to make a pill and way more profitable.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 18:54:22 PT
FoM - I'll Have to Look it up for you.
I have the research, but I'm too tired right now to look for it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 18:37:59 PT
afterburner
What were the names of the German pharmaceutical companies if you don't mind me asking.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 18:35:48 PT
Dr Ganj 
That would be funny if it wasn't so darn serious. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by Dr Ganj on December 02, 2004 at 18:20:52 PT
A Little Limerick
FoM-
Oh, yeah, I remember that too! It reminds me of a limerick I made up while sitting in my cinderblock jail cell:I went and planted some potHoping I'd never be caughtBut the cops came in forceWithout a warrant, of courseI was then beaten, battered, and shot
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 18:11:30 PT
Dr Ganj
You are and always have been a remarkable person in my book. I remember the article that was on Marijuananews.com about your one incident. That's stuck forever in my head.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 17:54:56 PT
ElPatricio 
I read an article sometime in the last three days indicating that the US deliberately blackmailed other countries into signing on to the 1961 UN Single Convention with promises/threats of foreign aid or military support. I haven't re-found the article, yet. If anyone finds it, please post a reminder. As far as herbal medicine is concerned, both the US and Canada have passed laws prohibiting medical claims for any botanicals, food or herb. If anyone makes medical claims, then, the herb must be issued a DIN (drug identification number) and be regulated by the government. This regime was instituted by German pharmaceutical companies and they have been pushing for worldwide compliance. Thanks for your post and good luck with your book.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Dr Ganj on December 02, 2004 at 17:45:45 PT
Hope & FoM
Hope & FoM-
Thank you both for your nice comments! It really motivates me to continue the lengthy fight. My wife & I had a small cannabis club in Oakland, CA a few years ago called Herbal Therapy Center. However, as the Feds exerted their power, and began busting several clubs, we decided to close instead of taking the chance they would single us out.
I regret shutting down such a friendly club, but I also know how unpleasant jail is too.
So, instead of being in the spotlight, we have decided to be a little more furtive, but just as determined to help those in need of quality, medical-grade, and affordable cannabis products.
But back to the Raich/Monson case...
To those who feel if the feds win, and it would stop other states in the future from voting in their own medical cannabis laws, think deeper. In fact, if more states continue to do so, it only makes our government officials look that much more insensitive, and out of touch with the will of the people. Imagine in a few years, instead of 11 states, there are 25 states that have voted in their own medical marijuana laws. The inexorable push for change by the people will finally have to be addressed.
This is the way, so let's just say medical marijuana by referendum is far better than medical marijuana by regulation. Since we all know by now all regulatory road blocks concerning marijuana are as solid as Hoover dam. Justice Breyer should have known this well known fact, before sounding so completely ignorant on such an important case.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by ElPatricio on December 02, 2004 at 17:22:27 PT:
Drug Laws as Scapegoat
When fascism arrived in America, it crept in on little cat's feet, as Sandburg might have said. As students of drug policy know only too well, drug prohibition began in 1919 when the U.S. Supreme Court sided 5-4 with the T-Men who indicted thousands of doctors for unprofessional conduct in prescribing addicts maintenance doses of drugs regulated by the 1914 Harrison Act.Our dismal history since then has seen the rise of a unique authoritarian system that the United States ultimately succeeded in selling the rest of the world in 1961 as the U.N.s Single Convention.America's war on drugs isn't about healthy drugs sold by corporations versus dangerous drugs too horrible to ever allow. The disparate treatment of marijuana, alcohol and tobacco makes that all too apparent.No, the drug war is sustained because it serves a darker purpose, a social-control mechanism to suppress the poor, ethnic minorities and political dissidents. They have become today's Jim Crow laws, a way of strengthening the position of society's privileged, at the expense of an ever-growing prison population and inner-city underclass.Many progressives still don't understand how destructive the war on drugs has been to the cultural fabric.By criminalizing the intoxicants associated with ethnic minorities, the federal government unwittingly guaranteed the presence of those drugs in perpetuity. There will always be people with little to lose who will risk everything in order to make black-market profits. And as long as black markets generate ancillary violence and property crimes, self-serving politicians can always exploit the public's fear of crime.As a consequence, the drug laws themselves create the perfect societal scapegoat, one not limited to a single ethnic, religious or economic minority, and which sweeps up potentially dissident youth and free-thinking intellectuals.As horrible as Nazi Germany was, persecuted Jews could still seek exile in countries where anti-semitism was discouraged or non-existent. Since 1961, no neutral territory exists in the war on drugs. With today's improved communications and computer data-bases, authorities can prosecute the war on drugs with frightening efficiency.I say all this to illustrate how pervasive and, yes, evil the war on drugs has become. Recognizing how self-defeating drug laws are is just a first step in a long march toward a more just society. It's my opinion that we are in the institution-building phase of a new civil-rights movement. I believe the deep-pocketed reformists were correct in identifying medical marijuana as a winnable issue. The fanatical opposition should make people wonder what's really at stake.Win or lose with Raich vs. Ashcroft, more Americans are beginning to question the assumptions that underlie the war on drugs. BTW, with all the talk about medicine by regulation, I've read before that FDA protocols are intended for single-compound medicines, and are inappropriate for an herbal substance like marijuana. Can anyone enlighten me further about that?Finally, thanks for the props, kaptinemo and Hope. I would post more often, but I'm trying to finish the book I'm writing about law-enforcement's opposition to medical cannabis. Right now, I'm nearly done with an article for Harper's on California's pot dispensaries, and hope that will help me recruit a literary agent.I'll continue to snag articles from Cannabis News, and can't avoid throwing my two-cents's worth from time to time. Keep up the good fight!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by ElPatricio on December 02, 2004 at 16:40:59 PT:
Impetus For Change
Kaptinemo wrote: "...the impetus for change will still continue."I couldn't agree more. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Hope on December 02, 2004 at 13:53:27 PT
Dr Ganj
It has to be a very good feeling to be helping someone so much with your skills.Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by goneposthole on December 02, 2004 at 13:10:19 PT
feelings
The Honorable Justice Scalia can't have eagle feathers,either, but crocodile tears are no problem for him.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 12:24:50 PT
afterburner
Thanks! I see what you mean. I wish I knew the answers to all of this. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 12:19:22 PT
RE Comment #13 posted by FoM 
I found it! States'Rights Defense Falters in MMJ Case: afterburner http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19912.shtml#8
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 12:07:41 PT
Hope
El Patricio had a bad time with the registration. He couldn't post and I didn't know why. I mentioned that he should contact Matt and he did and got it fixed. I hope he posts more often too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on December 02, 2004 at 12:04:37 PT
Dr Ganj 
All I can say is Thank You! You're the best!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Hope on December 02, 2004 at 10:51:31 PT
Hey, El Patricio!
Good to hear from you again.Kap, El Patricio has posted before but it's been way a long time ago.El Patricio, I very much enjoyed a conversation we had some time ago. I've been wondering if you would ever post again. Good to see you're still with us.This interstate commerce business...seems to me I have read articles referring to the huge amount of money the government has spent in recent years to be able to scientifically identify the source of all earth grown intoxicants...including marijuana.Those old supremes...I'm worried they aren't just in insulating ivory towers...I suspect they may squirrel away into well cushioned holes somewhere and they don't have any true knowledge of this issue...and they won't get it...and that...which is so obvious to me...is a huge concern.If they all really knew...and we knew they knew...we wouldn't have to be worried at all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Dr Ganj on December 02, 2004 at 10:43:22 PT
Thyroid Cancer, No Problem! I'm Still Voting!
Angel Raich is a friend of mine, and I have supplied her with medical marijuana free of charge. My contributions certainly didn't affect interstate commerce, and even if 100K patients were exempt if they (The Supreme Court) voted in favor of Angel & Diane, the amount of the exempt marijuana potentially diverted to the black market for profit would be minuscule compared to the gigantic illicit marijuana trade.
The fear that sick people growing cannabis for profit and affecting interstate commerce is unrealistic. The medical cannabis community can only consume so much, and it must be medical-grade. The majority of marijuana sold on the black market is not organic, mold, or mildew free, or without other contaminations.
Remember also, this case is about personal medical use of marijuana, consumed within the state. Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Raich/Monson, is does not mean sales would be legal. The DEA could still raid the cannabis clubs, although it would continue to demonstrate how heartless & callous our government truly is. With that in mind, given how the proceeding went, and the questions asked by the justices, we can all get ready for a 7-2 vote, or a 6-3 vote against the plaintiffs. I had hoped since Rehnquist was ill, 80, and pumped full of toxic FDA approved drugs, he would not be able to participate in this case. Oh, but no, I should have known how powerful his desire to linger just long enough to write his opinion, and make sure medical marijuana remains a felony, even to a frail, sick, California mother of two children, just trying to live and do the best she can. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by E_Johnson on December 02, 2004 at 09:56:49 PT
goneposthole
I don't believe that we're the only ones in the world with feelings.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by goneposthole on December 02, 2004 at 08:15:09 PT
There is trouble everywhere for Angel
She might be weak and heavy laden, but her strength is in the courage of her convictions. More power to her. She took it to the Supreme Court, but didn't get much compassion. Their hearts don't bleed. She can take it to the Supreme Being, too. Mother Earth provides the medicine that she needs, not Merck.Eagle feathers are medicine? Since when? They're comparing apples to oranges. Send eagle feathers to Justice Rhenquist, they're going to help him more than the chemotherapy and radiation treatments. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 05:17:46 PT
kaptinemo
:G  --. B  -... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by kaptinemo on December 02, 2004 at 04:49:36 PT:
Some possible scenarios
First off, welcome to El Patricio. Always good to see a new moniker 'in here'.I admit to having been very down about this whole matter, but have been ruminating on it for a while, and have arrived at the same conclusion as Mayan and others have outlined.Our successes so far, though seemingly small, have actually caused sea changes: notice the use of wording in many articles about this case. Gone is the usual titter-titter, yuk-yuk garbage of "Look at the cute stoners." Angel Raich's listing of terrible maladies doesn’t offer much chance for condescending, behind-the-hands snickering. Her situation has brought to the forefront the fate faced by all those who suffer double doses of pain: one from their illnesses and injuries, the other caused through sheer callousness of Federal intransigence on the matter of MMJ.Secondly, that intransigence had been pretty much hidden in the background. The average person in (to Use Richard Cowan's term) "DEALand" has not given much thought to the matter. Too many people of my generation, who toked in their younger days, think that the relatively lenient laws of then are still on the books today, completely ignorant of the fact that the laws have grown ever more vicious in their punitive aspect. They don't know about forfeiture, or how the courts have been rigged in favor of prosecutors, with the automatic ratcheting up of penalties based upon unproven assumptions: growing your meds in your house? Have plastic sandwich baggies to tuck your lunch in? *Ergo* (Gasp!) YOU'RE A DEALER! Throw the book at 'im!.This general but deep ignorance on the part of the electorate has served the antis well in the past, for if the 'squeaky wheel' is muffled and gagged, the problem never receives the attention it is due...and those who benefit from the process like it that way. The terrible dichotomy of use of a harmless plant causing the government to behave in ways reminiscent of the Inquisition has not been brought to the surface of the public's mind - until now.Raich/Monson has pointed out that not only is there a squeaky wheel, but it's screaming in agony. And the Feds have a hand in that agony.Will the States continue in their pursuit of initiatives? Considering the fact the Fed'ruhl Gub'mint is all but officially bankrupt (and therefore, can't play sugar daddy to them), that the States ARE officially bankrupt and can no longer afford to maintain the vast numbers of non-violent inmates housed in their prisons, and that the public has seen in the cases of prominent, respected personages such as Montel Williams coming out of the medical cannabis closet, the impetus for change will still continue. The Feds can no longer speak 'ex cathedra' like The Pope, and 'make it so!'. The issue of State's Rights has reached the nascent stage once more, and this time I believe it will be acted upon with more energy than ever.In addition, the Supremes have been taking plenty of heat these past 4 years, and with good reason. intervening in the 2000 election was a prime example of misuse of power, and the Supremes have acknowledged it by stating they can never do it again. The attempts by some of the Supremes to justify the continued sad, sorry DrugWar mess with comments like Breyer's about how Raich should take the FDA route when it's obvious to all who have eyes and a mind the obstructionist policies of the Feds preclude any honest endeavor to do so makes them look seriously out-of-touch and woefully ignorant. A positive (for us) ruling for Raich/Monson would be a means of redeeming themselves.I still hold that there is an abyss waiting to swallow this country, should the Feds grow emboldened by a negative ruling by the SC; we've seen in the past with the incident of the DEA trying to use their interpretation (and who the Hell are they to make such an interpretaion, since they are not law judges?) of a law to infringe upon First Amendment rights in Montana (remember that one? http://cannabisnews.com/news/16/thread16654.shtml ). They got their pinkies burned on that one, but that doesn't mean they won't try again.Push has been coming to shove on this issue for many years, on all fronts. I still contend that, for us, Raich/Monson is a belwether as to which way things may go. Either there will be freedom or tyranny, and any number of events can tip the balance. I'm hoping that Raich/Monson will move this country further from the edge of the Pit...but I've also got my Canadian immigration papers standing by, too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by FoM on December 01, 2004 at 21:55:39 PT
ElPatricio 
I agree!Here's hoping for a more truthful and beautiful future.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by ElPatricio on December 01, 2004 at 21:04:27 PT:
Courage the Flip Side of Discouraged
Charmed Quark has a right to be discouraged, since Supreme Court justices are just as capable of ignorance and bias about mmj as the cop on the corner. It's amazing what decades of bad science and pandering to the frightened public can accomplish.But Mr. Quark is mistaken in thinking the game is over as far as state initiatives go. As Bruce Mirken pointed out to the Associated Press, a bad ruling on Raich would not kill state mmj laws but simply confirm the federal government's ability to arrest medical users and suppliers in states that have such laws. Yet, the federal government has never had the law-enforcement resources to arrest legions of patients or growers. They can only pick off high-profile growers and distributors, which in California has not garnered the feds much favorable publicity.In any political movement, the tide turns when the public perceives an overreaction by authorities. If the Supreme Court closes the door on Raich-Monson, support will build for a new version of the Hinchey Amendment to curtail federal raids in the state.If voters don't feel strongly enough about mmj to support candidates who champion the cause, perhaps the sight of federal narcotics agents arresting patients in other states will change their attitude.Incidentally, the "three quarks for Muster Mark" also include Truth and Beauty. Here's hoping for a more truthful and beautiful future.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by cloud7 on December 01, 2004 at 20:48:12 PT
Oops 
I saw that Craiig posted something about this on another thread. Oh well.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by cloud7 on December 01, 2004 at 20:46:50 PT
Reefer madness
Take note of the convenient timing also.Marijuana may increase risk of psychosishttp://msnbc.msn.com/id/6629828/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by ekim on December 01, 2004 at 20:34:56 PT
ok start here- as every State needs to cut budgets
The Appeals Court precedent has effectively blocked the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients in the eight Ninth Circuit states that have medical marijuana laws. The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that it has the right to regulate state commercial activity that is part of a larger economic enterprise – such as the estimated $10.5 billion national market for marijuana. 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on December 01, 2004 at 20:01:49 PT
Senator Edward's Wife
I thought about how well Cannabis helps people that have extreme nausea and if Mrs. Edwards has a hard time with Chemo I bet she would try Cannabis. I sure hope she would if she can't keep any food or liquids down.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on December 01, 2004 at 19:53:30 PT
Bravo The GCW
You did wonders for my spirit!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by The GCW on December 01, 2004 at 19:46:18 PT
charmed quark,
You said, "right now I'm just very discouraged."(You also sound very discouraged. Accept some of the good that does come along, it helps.)You said, "Of course, they can still pass the initiatives, but they won't because they will know they have no legal meaning."(We will continue the course... Again this court decission will only effect a small facet of this issue... it almost can not harm Us, it almost can only help Us and it is already helping... Part of the problem We face is getting this issue into the mainstream and now it seems to be coffee table talk stuff...) (Editorials first come right out and state cannabis is compassionate... then if they don't like the Supremes spew, they spout...) (It's a new day.) (the Feds. gotta be wondering what is coming at them next; they are busted and getting the boot all over the place...)))
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by E_Johnson on December 01, 2004 at 19:35:48 PT
And about the new AG CQ
This case puts a demand on the new AG right when he starts his new job. This is the perfect time for the policy to change.I think they'll wait to see how the court rules. If we win, they'll have a cow of some kind. If we lose, then Bush could respond to the growing media furor over his idiotic policy by announcing some kind of policy change by Gonzales.This case has all of Washington looking at Bush like he's a complete villain. His support on this issue is shrinking down to a tiny island of fanatics whose own political capital diminishes every day.He may be dumb but he's not stupid, ya know what I mean?
 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on December 01, 2004 at 19:15:43 PT

afterburner
I wish I knew which one. I've done so many articles recently that I haven't read them all thru like I should have. If I find it I'll let you know.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by afterburner on December 01, 2004 at 19:04:12 PT

E_J and FoM
Someone said in one of yesterday's articles something to the effect that it was a mistake to have Angel as the front person for this case. Does anyone remember what article it was? I don't understand their reasoning.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by charmed quark on December 01, 2004 at 19:02:16 PT

No, I don't think more states will pass
Up to now, it's been an open issue about whether a state can allow medical marijuana. If the Supremes rule against, it will no longer be an issue. Of course, they can still pass the initiatives, but they won't because they will know they have no legal meaning. Also, most of the states that allow public referendums have already passed MM laws. So it will be slow going at this point anyway.I hope people are right about the media coverage. That could be a very positive outcome.But right now I'm just very discouraged.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by mayan on December 01, 2004 at 18:46:54 PT

charmed
Imho, states will continue to pass medical cannabis initiatives even if we lose this case...unless the supremes rule that individual states can't pass such initiatives. Can they do that? Look what we've done since Prop. 215 in 1996. All the while the feds haven't recognized medical cannabis but the states keep on keepin' on! There will likely be many more Vioxx's and with the ever increasing price of pharmaceuticals(and health care in general) medical cannabis will become more and more important in voter's minds. If the boomers embrace cannabis, look out! Politicians who oppose medical cannabis will be putting their tongues against the "new third-rail".More on Ohio...Campaigns Demand that Court Allow Recount:
http://www.votecobb.org/Activist OH County Judge Halts Green/Lib Recount!
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001007.htmIn Ohio 2004, it's the People versus the Party of Hate & Terror and the Party of Duck and Run...but will the Democrats now stand and fight?
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/956THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN... A National Disgrace - A Review of the 9/11 Commission Report
by David R. Griffin:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041201082054844AMENDED AND RESTATED CITIZENS' COMPLAINT AND PETITION
TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR AN INDEPENDENT GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.phpCrossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil - by Michael C. Ruppert:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/announce.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 01, 2004 at 18:40:28 PT

EJ Exactly
You said everything I've been thinking but I didn't know how to say it. Angel is a great person to be out there in the front lines and I really appreciate her effort and the effort of all those that have made it possible for her and all of us. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on December 01, 2004 at 18:32:24 PT

CQ I think this suit is a win/win situation
The major media people are all caught up in this now, they're emotionally involved. Angel got them where it counts.If the Supremes rule against us, these news media people are going to feel some secondary trauma over it. They are going to feel the pain. They will worry about Angel.They will express outrage and they will demand that Bush solve Angel's problem somehow.Whether he does or not will be another story. But we are far far ahead now from where we would have been if Angel Raich had not become a national media figure.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by charmed quark on December 01, 2004 at 18:06:22 PT

Should we go home and die?
No - that isn't what I meant at all. Just that by chosing to contest this through the courts, we lost and legal medical marijuana through the states will go away. I would have preferred this not to have happened.We have to keep working on the politicians and start getting the message out that a politician who won't support medical marijuana shows a lack of compassion which may be indicative of other character flaws that might make people want to reconsider voting for him.And to keep getting out the information about what MM is good for. And lobbying politicians to try to force the DEA to reclassify marijuana to schedule 2 ( althought they never will, claiming that complex natural products can never be considered pharmaceuticals). I think attacking the DEA and its classification system is another way to go. The DEA, of course, isn't about medicine at all, just drug abuse. Yet their decisions can have very negative impacts on patient care. Just look at what they are doing to pain patients. Pain doctors are becoming afraid to prescribe opiates, fearing the DEA will accuse them of allowing patients to divert or abuse them. It's a horrible situation.Of course, if marijuana wasn't illegal it would be treated like just another herbal remedy, although a rather powerful and effective one. No need for FDA approval, etc. Sigh.-CQ
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by charmed quark on December 01, 2004 at 17:56:34 PT

Global Warning
You ask my age - let's just say I remember when Eisenhower was president.Yes, many aging baby boomers support medical marijuana, as do a lot of other people. The polls consistently show very strong support across the country by liberals and conservatives, boomers and young people.But it is not a hot botton issue. Most people won't vote somebody out on a single issue. Only extremists do that. And few supporters of MM are extremists, while many who are against it are.Yes, as people get older and develop more ills, MM might help. But most people figure that the pharmaceutical companies will have something that helps and won't worry too much about access to marijuana. Even now, most of the people I know with MS don't know about the studies on pot.I was quite experienced with pot from my college years, thought it was a great recreational drug. I even knew it would make some weird neurological symptoms I got go away in an instant and keep them away for days. I didn't know what they were, but pot was great for them. But many years latter, when these sysmptoms developed into an extreme sort of migraine and cluster headaches, it never occurred to me that cannabis might help. I had great faith in the pharmaceuticals. In fact, when a neurologist asked if I had tried cannabis for my migraines, I laughed. There's no way such a soft drug could help my deadly migraines.It took decades of trying everything available from my doctor before I would even consider it. And for personal reasons, I tried it in the form of Marinol. Doesn't work as well as I remember pot working on my regular migraines in college, but better than nothing.-CQ
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on December 01, 2004 at 16:02:51 PT

So what's your point CQ
We should all go home and die?Or what?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by global_warming on December 01, 2004 at 15:56:20 PT

re:#2
"I'm willing to bet that the people who are against medical marijuana are more likely to vote against a politician for supporting med. marjuana than the other way around."If you are a betting man, than you can understand the rules of chance, and the fact that many of the voters are an ageing population, that "survived the 60's", ruling out these "boomers" is a mistake, for they will be a core that cannot be ignored.Of a personal question, what is your age cq?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Craiig on December 01, 2004 at 15:34:27 PT

i agree, however
these politicians don't like bad press and I feel that the press is favouring the patients? and therefore they may take this into account. It's good that it's back in the news again with a positive spin on it for a change.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by charmed quark on December 01, 2004 at 15:26:03 PT

Game Over
I was afraid when this case was taken to court. I felt it was better to do nothing and just wait until Ashcroft was replaced and a new AG was put in who had better things to do than attack sick people.I was pleasantly surprised by the 9th Circuit ruling, but knew the game was over when it was appealed to the Supreme Court. The commerce clause has been so distorted that any activity that could in theory involve the movement of a substance that can't easily be distinguished by origin is considered controllable by the Feds.Even though the court has been pushing states' rights, they have never supported states' rights for social issues, only finacial. So they are going to rule against the right of states to establish Medical Marijuana.When they do so, the movement to support medical marijuana by popular referendum will be ended.And Congress will not change the laws on this. It doesn't matter thaqt 65 yo 80% of people polled support medical marijuana. What matters is how many votes politicians gain or loose supporting it. While the large majority of people support medical marijuana, only a small segment of them would vote against a politician if he won't support it. I'm willing to bet that the people who are against medical marijuana ( What about the children!) are more likely to vote against a politician for supporting med. marjuana than the other way around.So politicians have nothing to gain supporting it, and much to lose. This is why there is such an anomoly between the polls and politicians. Med marijuana easily passes by popular referendum and almost never is supported by direct legislation.And this won't change until politicians start fearing they will lose votes if they don't support medical marijuana. For most people, this simply is not an important enough issue to vote somebody out. And I doubt it will change.CQ
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 01, 2004 at 15:18:39 PT

Another reason alcohol is more dangerous
I mean, no matter how potent the pot, you can't make a primitive explosive out of it... a Molotov Bongload? I don't think so.
Student severely burned during drinking ritual
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment