cannabisnews.com: Unpoetic Justice





Unpoetic Justice
Posted by CN Staff on December 13, 2004 at 08:32:27 PT
By Joshua Glenn
Source: Boston Globe 
Is Boston in danger of invasion by killer tomatoes? Those who follow US Supreme Court oral arguments may be forgiven if they now have that impression. Late last month, when the court was debating whether federal drug policy supersedes California's medical marijuana law, a semi-coherent comment by one justice made some of us wonder if he's been spending too much time in the evidence room.
On Nov. 29, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a liberal who's skeptical of limiting Washington's power in the area of drug laws, posed a hypothetical question about possible ramifications of the private growing of substances for personal use. "You know, he grows heroin, cocaine, tomatoes that are going to have genomes in them that could, at some point, lead to tomato children that will eventually affect Boston. . . ," Breyer said, according to courtroom transcripts. "You know, we can -- oil that's never, in fact, being used, but we want an inventory of it, federally. You know, I can multiply these examples."Um, is that a rhetorical device, your honor, or a threat? Source: Boston Globe (MA)Author: Joshua GlennPublished: December 12, 2004Copyright: 2004 Globe Newspaper CompanyContact: letter globe.comWebsite: http://www.boston.com/globe/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmThe Medical Marijuana Mysteryhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20005.shtmlFumbling Federalism (Part Deux) http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20004.shtml Shattered Grass? -- Metro Santa Cruzhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19998.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #12 posted by Hope on December 15, 2004 at 18:40:17 PT
the seemingly "out there in space" post below
was in reference to an item in Nick's post, called "Scotus".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Hope on December 15, 2004 at 05:18:49 PT
Is it a "legend"?
That if you shoot someone in your home...threatening you or your life...then you are somewhat protected legally...as opposed to if they have your TV and are running down the driveway to a getaway car and you shoot them in the back or the back of the leg or arm?One of the many basic rules of packing heat is that you do not shoot a fleeing person whether he has your TV or diamond ring or whatever. Basic morality says that a human life, no matter how little one might think of that particular human's life, is of more real value than an object or "grudge"...in this case the "grudge" being that he's a “&^%$%#  druggie"?"Fleeing" is a natural human reaction to possible assault, capture, or death. Fleeing people aren't likely to hurt you unless you are right in front of them. If you are right in front of them and they are obviously going to hurt you to get past you and you can‘t possibly step out of the way...then self defense would be called for. If the fleeing person is dragging your nephew by the leg, then what he is fleeing with would step up in real "value". Life is in danger. It seems that the Justices would appreciate the value of safeguards against police brutality and abuse of authority. Shooting a fleeing person or killing someone to get to him seems to fall into the category of brutality.All they had to do was run a check on the car tags and start looking for him if he managed to fully escape. If it holds true, and is not a “legend”, for the homeowner or citizen, not to shoot a fleeing suspect, it should hold true for police as well.Dirty Harry, or in this case, Dirty Harriet rides again.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on December 14, 2004 at 06:34:01 PT:
SCOTUS...
...on police violence: law enforcement's accountability reduced to nearly nothing.Court Sides With Police Over Deadly Force 
Updated: Monday, Dec. 13, 2004 - 9:06 PM By GINA HOLLAND 
Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused Monday to clarify when police can use deadly force to stop fleeing criminal suspects but said a lower court got it wrong in allowing a lawsuit against an officer in Washington state who shot a burglary suspect.Law enforcement groups and 16 states had encouraged the court to use the officer's appeal to clarify protection for officers from lawsuits when they injure or kill fleeing felons.Instead, the court issued an unsigned opinion that found only that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco erred in ruling that the officer, Rochelle Brosseau, clearly violated the suspect's constitutional rights.Brosseau shot Kenneth Haugen in 1999 as he fled in his Jeep to avoid being arrested for drug charges and for questioning in a burglary in Puyallup, Wash., a city of about 35,000 people in the Puget Sound region 10 miles east of Tacoma. Haugen pleaded guilty to fleeing police but then filed suit claiming a civil rights violation. He suffered a punctured lung in the shooting but recovered.The 9th Circuit, which is frequently overturned by the Supreme Court, said Brosseau should face a jury."Officer Brosseau shot an unarmed man in the back as he attempted to drive away from her. In these circumstances, the officer's actions should be second-guessed," justices were told in a filing by Haugen's attorney, Bonnie Robin-Vergeer of the Public Citizen Litigation Group.On the other side, the officer's actions were praised by law enforcement groups and states."Officer Brosseau should be commended for her selfless bravery in the face of imminent danger to herself, and those residing in the quiet residential neighborhoods of Puyallup," justices were told by lawyers in the brief on behalf of 16 states.The Supreme Court's 8-1 opinion said that "Brosseau's actions fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force" but were not clear enough to open her up to a lawsuit.Brosseau said Monday she believed Haugen posed an immediate threat to civilians and officers in the area. "These kinds of decisions are made in split seconds in dangerous surroundings, then scrutinized for years in court," she said in a statement.Three justices _ Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer _ said the court should have used the case to make clear how courts should handle such lawsuits.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a dissent that the officer was out of bounds in shooting a suspect who had not threatened anyone, and that it should be left to a jury to decide if she should have to pay damages.The case is Brosseau v. Haugen, 03-1261.In a second similar case, justices ordered a lower court to reconsider whether officers can be sued when they tackle someone and knock the person to the ground during an arrest.At issue is the claim of an officer in Xenia, Ohio, that he should be shielded from a lawsuit over his handling of the arrest of a woman.Police went to the home of Cheryl Lyons in 1998 to investigate an allegation that Lyons' teenage daughter had assaulted someone. The woman claimed that she did not invite officers into her house and argued with one of them.Another officer, summoned to assist, ran into the house and threw Lyons to the ground in a football-like tackle, she claimed in a lawsuit. Justices threw out a decision by the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a jury should be allowed to consider if officer Matthew Foubert went too far.The case is Foubert v. Lyons, 03-1622.
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=361044&nid=343&template=print
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by siege on December 13, 2004 at 15:31:59 PT
SCJ
the canada Supreme Court Justices use
the US cases to do theres court cases. so I would say they can from around the world to make it fair in world opinion.All the Citzens can do is To direct (the Supreme Court Justices) to a source of information; refer: OR sent them all the informathion we can find on the subject of medical marijuana. smoked or 
 vaporizer technology, eaten or what every.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Hope on December 13, 2004 at 13:52:06 PT
About the Supremes
I wonder if they can do outside research on thier cases or if they just have the briefs they are presented as part of the case. Do they read newspapers? Do they avoid talk or reading outside sources concerning a case?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by dongenero on December 13, 2004 at 12:43:06 PT
MPP press release
Great press release from MPP and timely too. The noose is tightening on the antis. Everytime they squirm, the knot gets a little tighter.Despite all of the completed studies, including 1999 IOM, the recent press over the Raich case usually has some mention of a need for "studies" on the efficacy of MMJ...including comments by the Supreme Court Justices.
Well ,there you go media and Supremes. Rob Kampia has summed it up for you there. 
There is no hiding Supreme Court. Put your findings where your principles are if you have any. Either way, it will be there for everyone to see clearly.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by CN Staff on December 13, 2004 at 12:11:25 PT
Press Release from MPP
DEA Ruling Makes FDA Approval of Medical Marijuana Impossible; State and Federal Legislation Now Only Hope for Patients 
WASHINGTON -- December 13 -- In a blow to those who have urged medical marijuana advocates to seek FDA approval of marijuana as a prescription drug, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has acted to block the only proposed research project that could lead to marijuana's FDA approval. In its letter to Lyle Craker, Ph.D., of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the DEA appeared to slam the door completely shut on the FDA approval process.Barring favorable action by the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision leaves medical marijuana patients with no hope for protection from arrest for the foreseeable future except through state and federal legislation, officials of the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) said today.On June 25, 2001, Dr. Craker, director of the university's Medicinal Plant Program, filed an application with the DEA for approval to establish a facility that would produce marijuana for FDA-approved research. Currently, all marijuana for research in the U.S. must come from a National Institute on Drug Abuse-contracted farm in Mississippi. NIDA's marijuana has been only inconsistently available to researchers and cannot be used for prescription sale. This makes FDA approval of marijuana effectively impossible unless an alternative source is made available, since testing would need to be done on the same product that is sold to patients.The DEA's Dec. 10 letter to Dr. Craker said that approval of the application "would not be consistent with the public interest." The letter then prejudged research that has not yet occurred, stating, "Current marijuana research has not progressed to Phase 2 of the clinical trials because current research must use smoked marijuana, which ultimately cannot be the permitted delivery system for any potential marijuana medication due to the deleterious effects and the difficulty in monitoring the efficaciousness of smoked marijuana." The letter can be downloaded at: http://www.mpp.org/pdf/DEA.pdf "The DEA's statement is simply false," said Rick Doblin, Ph.D. of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), which had planned to fund the UMass facility. "Phase 2 trials of marijuana -- which look at both safety and efficacy -- are underway now at the University of California, as is a study of vaporizer technology, which allows use of inhaled marijuana without smoking. The DEA is saying that we can't ever go to the FDA with marijuana because it has to be smoked, and that is simply not true. It is appalling that the DEA claims further research on medical marijuana is not in the public interest." A MAPS study of vaporizer technology has 
been stalled for 17 months by the federal government."I am disappointed that the DEA seems to have decided that marijuana cannot be a medicine before the research has even taken place," Dr. Craker said. "We intend to appeal this decision and will keep trying to pursue vitally important research on medical uses of marijuana."Dr. Craker and his colleagues plan to seek an appeal hearing as allowed by DEA procedures, but anticipate that this would be the start of a process that is likely to take years and -- based on past experience -- could conceivably take decades."In the Supreme Court two weeks ago, Justice Breyer told two California patients that they should go to the FDA to get marijuana approved as a medicine, but now the DEA has slammed the door on that process," said MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia. "The DEA has proven that the system is rigged to make sure that marijuana will never be approved by the FDA, because the DEA can always block the research that the FDA needs. The DEA's decision means the only way to protect patients from arrest is through state and federal legislation, and this adds new urgency to our efforts in both Congress and the states. We expect legislators to move quickly once they understand that, for the foreseeable future, legislative action is the only way to keep cancer and AIDS patients out of jail." 
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1213-07.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by afterburner on December 13, 2004 at 11:56:46 PT
Justice Breyer, Bible Answer to Wickard v. Filburn
Proverbs 11:26 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation  
26"The people curse him who holds back grain [when the public needs it], but a blessing [from God and man] is upon the head of him who sells it." --Bible Gateway http://www.biblegateway.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by dr slider on December 13, 2004 at 10:23:25 PT:
eye-n-aye
I'm reminded of George Carlin's new book introduction as I examine the difference between socialization and indoctrination, the former being what we want for our children and the latter being what we get.The difference is much more than semantic, it has to do with the nature of the society doing the "training". In socializing a child we encourage natural instincts of the "clan nature" of humans and provide a framework for discussion. While indoctrinating a child we'd exploit such instinct to create artificial "others" who throughout history have been to blame for all of our ills.Woe to the others
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Siege on December 13, 2004 at 10:12:21 PT
MARIJANA 
This is where MARIJANA comes in, it opens up the old Biblical Values and in the (new world order) they can not have any oppose to government ideology. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by siege on December 13, 2004 at 09:41:15 PT
Brainwashing
Brainwashing is not, as some anti-Christian educators and students contend, the Biblical process of training our children to love and follow God. The word "brainwashing" refers to a planned, step-by-step attempt to "wash" family-taught beliefs from the minds of those who oppose government ideology. In America, it would mean replacing the old Biblical values and world view with a new way of thinking that would support a totalitarian agenda. In other words, every child must become a peace child, a willing and active servant of a new world order. 
 I heard this one on the play ground at the kids school the other day!! 
A familiar tale told to first-graders in SCHOOLS illustrates both the tactics and the planned transformation of the world. We all know the story of the Little Red Hen who wanted some bread to eat. She asked some of her barnyard friends to help make it. But the cat, the dog, and the goat all said "no." Finally she did all the work herself. Yet, when the bread was done and its fragrance spread throughout the farm, her unwilling neighbors were more than willing to help her eat it."Won't you share with us?" they begged."No," she answered. "Since you didn't help, you don't get anything."In the context of traditional values, the moral of the story is: you get what you work for. But those who have learned to think and see from the new global perspective are led to a different conclusion. Listen to the kinds of questions the first grade teacher asked her class:   "Why was the Little Red Hen so stingy? Isn't it only right that everyone gets to eat? Why wouldn't she share what she had with some who had none?" I'm concerned , "What kinds of values were the children taught?" The new interpretation emphasizes love and sharing, but what is missing? How might it confuse a child's values? The answers are obvious. The children were taught socialist values. The new interpretation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by CN Staff on December 13, 2004 at 08:52:58 PT
Press Release from The Drug Policy Alliance
DEA Tells Marijuana Researchers No on GrowDecember 13, 2004The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has rejected an application filed by Prof. Lyle Craker, a University of Massachusetts – Amherst researcher, to grow marijuana in a strictly controlled setting for the purpose of creating a supply for the large number of scientists who have long wanted to study the medical efficacy of the plant. The DEA decision, while disappointing, is not surprising – coming as it does 3 ½ years after the researchers filed their application. It also highlights as well as any other the federal government’s hypocrisy and unscientific foot-dragging over marijuana research.Many experts, including Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann, appealed to the DEA to approve the researcher’s request, which would have created the first and only supply of marijuana for research in the nation. In the end, though, the DEA, which no doubt would have preferred to sit on the application indefinitely, only issued its decision as a result of a lawsuit, launched by Craker; Rick Doblin of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS); and Valerie Corral, co-founder of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz, CA forced its hand.Rick Doblin, head of MAPS, which would have sponsored the facility and conducted federally approved marijuana research through UMass had the application of Professor Craker been approved, says that they and Craker have already begun the onerous task of appealing the ruling. “The lawsuit forced DEA to issue its ruling,” Doblin writes, “which we can now challenge in the context of [DEA] Administrative Law Judge hearings.”Outside of a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court's Raich case, medical-marijuana research is the only means currently available to garner FDA-mandated approval for legalizing its use in combating a host of illnesses. 
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/12_13_04craker.cfm
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment