cannabisnews.com: High Regard for Medical Pot Law





High Regard for Medical Pot Law
Posted by CN Staff on December 06, 2004 at 09:23:54 PT
By David Harsanyi, Denver Post Columnist
Source: Denver Post
Maybe it's just the contact high speaking, but there's little doubt in my mind that if marijuana were seriously and institutionally studied, Thomas Lawrence would have won a Nobel Prize by now. As we're sitting around his dining room table, in an unassuming house tucked away in a middle-class Denver neighborhood, Thomas hits me with the least surprising confession I've ever heard: "Listen, Dave, I'm high right now."
Cats and dogs mill about in stupors, as Thomas then tries to explain cloning techniques, chemical compounds and ways to develop new, more effective, strands of cannabis.I eye a timeworn bong in the kitchen, and that eye is getting more watery by the minute.When I try to wheedle out quotes bolstering my case for federalism and against zealous federal agencies - in particular the Drug Enforcement Agency - Thomas is busy talking cultivation.In fact, the more Thomas talks pot, the more keyed up he gets. (Well, as keyed up as a guy who smokes a half-dozen joints a day can get.) A couple of minutes into my visit, I've learned that cannabis can essentially cure all the world's ills: Our clothing needs, our reliance on fossil fuels and around 60 percent of our pharmaceutical dependency.And anyway, he explains, with a smile, "no one grows weed like me."Thomas, his wife, Larisa, and their partner Scott Fry, otherwise known as the "Colorado Compassion Club," have the state's permission to grow, possess and use marijuana. As designated caregivers, they provide medical pot to about 50 patients in Colorado. For cost.Thomas gives me a full tour of his bright white, temperature controlled, artificially lit basement room where he cultivates strains called White Lighting and Bubble Gum. It's quite an extraordinary operation, considering he started it from scratch a couple of months ago.Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/regard.htmSource: Denver Post (CO)Author: David Harsanyi, Denver Post ColumnistPublished: Monday, December 06, 2004 Copyright: 2004 The Denver Post CorpWebsite: http://www.denverpost.com/Contact: openforum denverpost.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmLet States Decide Medicinal Pot Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19977.shtmlMedical Pot or Not? High Court To Decide http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19973.shtml Sanity's AWOL in War on Drugshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19972.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #13 posted by ngeo on December 06, 2004 at 21:14:44 PT:
max flowers
Max Flowers' comment states the plain, obvious truth. Not only is the punishment for a victimless crime cruel and unusual, but the 'crime' itself is a political crime, the prisoners it creates are political prisoners, and the state which endorses this political crime is a police state which seeks to restrict and thus control the thought of its subjects. The fact is that the punishment is not only cruel and unusual in its severity, but also cruel and unusual in that the 'crime' it punishes is an artifical creation of a policy that ultimately promotes thought control. It is not only the 8th Amendment that is involved, but the 1st: freedom of speech, which requires freedom of thought. However, since we live in a corrupt and criminal police state, can we expect the state's masters or their minions to admit this truth? Of course not. Only when the uninformed population thoroughly is shown the evil nature of the state is there the possibility of overturning prohibition. The state will act only when that which it prizes most - its legitimacy - is threatened. So the constant refrain of all who seek not only their health but their freedom must be that the state is a corrupt enterprise which has subverted the constitution it pretends to uphold.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on December 06, 2004 at 20:53:02 PT
ekim
We didn't see it either. We don't get C-Span 3 on Direct TV. It must only be for cable. I think it was old because I'm fairly sure I saw it before. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by ekim on December 06, 2004 at 20:48:03 PT
Hey FoM did you see -C-Span
i looked but must have missed it. i have wondered where Gov Johnson has been and hope that he will be doing some Leap events.Dec 15 04 Ardmore Rotary 12:00 PM Howard Wooldridge Ardmore Oklahoma USA 
 The Ardmore Rotary lunches with Board Member Howard Wooldridge to discuss issues related to the failure of drug prohibition. Dec 22 04 Ada Rotary 12:00 PM Howard Wooldridge Ada Oklahoma USA 
 The Ada Rotary welcomes Board Member Howard Wooldridge for lunch and discussion of the failures related to drug prohibition. 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by The GCW on December 06, 2004 at 19:45:51 PT
Hey,
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/5FA3FA557FD39E2E86256F6000381138?OpenDocument&Headline=Taxes+won't+prevent+teen-age+drinking
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by The GCW on December 06, 2004 at 19:44:58 PT
Regulation works.
This is a letter to the editor in the St. Louis Post (Busch) that shows some insight. Booze is harder for kids to get because it is regulated... and this letter indicates more...From,Francine Katz 
Vice President, 
Communications and Consumer 
Affairs 
Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. 
St. Louis Taxes won't prevent teen-age drinking12/06/2004
Advertisement
The Nov. 29 editorial, "You can't fix stupid," rightly points out the importance of zero-tolerance for underage drinking. That's long been Anheuser-Busch's position, and it's why we and our wholesalers have invested hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two decades in community-based programs and national advertising campaigns to help address this issue. We applaud the legislators on the interim committee for understanding that, when it comes to dealing with underage drinking, taxes are not the answer. Since it is illegal for them to do so, most teens who drink are not buying alcohol directly. Thus, an increase in price will have no impact on whether or not they break the law. Indeed, research shows that two-thirds of teens say they get alcohol from their parents or other adults. Higher beer taxes would, however, unfairly punish adults who drink responsibly. The evidence is clear: Education and awareness programs are the best way to address underage drinking. Your call for higher taxes to pay for more "sobriety education," however, misses the fact that a great many such programs are in place and often are provided to schools for free. Anheuser-Busch, for example, has a speakers bureau of individuals who visit schools and provide important messages to students about the consequences of underage drinking and the importance of respecting the law. While significant progress has been made, and today fewer teens are drinking, we are more committed than ever to continuing our efforts. If parents stay actively involved in helping their teens make good decisions, retailers continue their efforts to prevent sales to minors and there is strict enforcement of the law, we can win this fight without raising anyone's taxes. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by afterburner on December 06, 2004 at 19:25:36 PT
Max Flowers 
Hear, hear!Marc Emery has given numerous speeches in Canada informing people of this "cruel and unusual" use of the law against non-violent cannabis patients, while letting violent criminals off with lesser punishments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by mayan on December 06, 2004 at 18:51:24 PT
unrelated...
Here's some more info on Ohio...Important !!! Volunteer Opportunities in Ohio - Concrete Information!!!
http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2004/12/important-volunteer-opportunities-in.htmlMIS-TRUTH: AP Report Suggests Ohio Courts Won't Overturn The Results if Kerry Wins The Recount:
http://newsclipautopsy.blogspot.com/The Gathering Storm:
http://www.opednews.com/roland_120504_storm.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 06, 2004 at 18:36:10 PT
Heads Up: C-Span at 10 PM
10:00 pm
 
0:56 SpeechMarijuana LawsNational Org. Reform of Marijuana LawsGary Johnson , R-NM Keith Stroup , National Org. Reform of Marijuana Laws http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csphttp://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=157020878
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on December 06, 2004 at 16:54:01 PT
Heads Up: Live Drug Policy Alliance Webcast
December 6, 2004Wednesday, December 8, 20056:00 pm (EST)With your help 2005 will be a watershed year for medical marijuana, sentencing reform and a host of other critical drug-policy-reform issues. Tune in Wednesday, December 8 at 6 p.m. (EST) for a live web chat wrap-up on the year in drug policy reform -- and a discussion of the opportunities and challenges the drug-policy-reform movement will face in 2005.Executive director Ethan Nadelmann will moderate the discussion, and will be joined by other Alliance staff, including public policy director Michael Blain, attorney Judy Appel, and others.To listen, please bookmark this page.Click here to submit a question. -- questions drugpolicy.orgSo please join us on Wednesday, December 8 at 6 p.m. (EST) for a live web chat on drug policy reform. And visit our chat page before Wednesday to submit questions. http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/12_06_04chat.cfm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on December 06, 2004 at 14:57:53 PT
Cruel and unusual
Maybe I'm high, but at the moment it strikes me that there has been no significant argument made against (incarceration as part of) cannabis prohibition that is based on the 8th Amendment Constitutional defense of cruel and unusual punishment. I just got through reading up on it and it seems to me that it is tailor-made to our situation.Note the following (from www.lectlaw.com):CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT - The U.S. Constitution's eight amendment states: 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' A number of state constitutions also contain the same, or similar, provisions.'A penalty offends the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.' (In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424; In re DeBeque (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 241, 248.) 
[end excerpt]So let's look at this in the light of that exact ruling. If we want to focus on medical cannabis use in particular, the layout goes like this (and bear in mind that in criminal law it is very important to look at intent in judging a matter): An ill person, suffering from pain and/or other medical problems, seeks to treat him/herself with a plant. The same plant is prohibited by law, but this person's suffering is great enough that they have decided to face that risk anyway. That is the essence of the "crime" and the intent behind it. Can any decent person really maintain that for this "crime", it is proper punishment to lock the defendant up, deprive him/her of their liberty, expose him/her to the dangers of jail/prison, and deny him/her the medical relief sought in the cannabis, etc.? When the defendant's only goal was to feel less pain, to try to feel better? Is that punishment not 'so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity'? I say it is, and very obviously so. For a real crime, you need criminal intent, yet here there is none. You need a victim to the "crime", but here there is none.Let's look at more from the same article:'The Lynch court fashioned a three-pronged test to aid in determining whether a particular punishment is unconstitutionally disproportionate to the offense for which it is imposed; the test is not determinative, but is a tool to aid in the court's inquiry. Under the first prong, the court examines the nature of the offense and/or the offender, paying particular attention to the danger each poses to society. Secondly, the court may compare the challenged punishment with punishments prescribed for other, more serious, crimes in the same jurisdiction. Finally, the challenged penalty may be compared with punishments for the same offense in other jurisdictions.' People v. Almodovar (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 732, 739-740. [end excerpt]Again, to me it is patently obvious that if these rulings and opinions are applied to situations where a suffering person is trying to feel better by using a plant in a medical context, the federal laws against cannabis use, cultivation and possession are unconstitutional because they result in cruel and unusual punishment. A sick person who is merely attempting to self-medicate poses zero danger to society---absolutely none, and this is a fact that I regard as totally irrefutable. As to the "second prong"---yes, let us compare the prison sentences, asset forfeiture and fines associated with federal laws against cannabis with 'punishments prescribed for other, more serious, crimes in the same jurisdiction.' Sush a comparison would reveal that the penalties for medical cannabis "crimes" are about even with those for rape, robbery and worse. The "third prong" comparison works about the same. Are the courts and the entire system really so evil and the wisdom of judges and prosecutors and juries really so corrupted that the legal system now equates a sick person trying to self-medicate to a malicious robber, and punishes them equally?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dankhank on December 06, 2004 at 14:30:54 PT
Good story
I looked up, saw it was 420, just out of shower I robed and packed my new Cannabiniod Delivery Device, activated, surfed here and read this marvelous story.I will be in Denver for a week in the spring and will try to meet these people.I like to meet people I can learn from.Peace.
Peace
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by tokenitallup4162 on December 06, 2004 at 13:51:26 PT:
  SHORT  N   SIMPLE
 I, as Thomas, when trying to discuss marijuana and what it can do for our economy, get a natural high explaining this issue to so many people. Being disabled gives you more time to see and hear others response.Wonder if we can clone more like Thomas and his way of thinking.HUmmmmmm. Hope all have a very MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dr slider on December 06, 2004 at 13:45:47 PT:
Sanity
That "contact high" comment got the hampsters running... When cannabists are in fear of imminent persecution the air verily shimmers with the heightened awareness necessary for the survival of any hunted minority (they call us paranoid), but drop an unsuspecting journalist in with a comfortable cannabist effervescent with enthusiasm for a willing ear, and magic happens.Bravo Thomas Lawrence, the Post no less. At the risk of sounding religious, the fervor that grows as one lists the multitude of miracles of this plant is like a tornado, it builds out of Dagda himself, a force of nature, and one that follows the Way as they extoll such virtues will rouse the audience like the most fervent Baptist preacher on Christmas.Contact high indeed.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment