cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case


cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case 










  Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case 

Posted by FoM on November 27, 2000 at 09:45:20 PT
By James Vicini 
Source: Reuters 

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether marijuana can be distributed for medicinal uses to seriously ill patients, a case pitting the federal government against a California cannabis club.The high court agreed to hear a U.S. Justice Department appeal of a ruling that would allow marijuana clubs to resume service for patients who can prove that cannabis was a medical necessity.
The court's decision to hear the case marked the latest development in a conflict between federal narcotics laws, which prohibit distribution of marijuana, and a 1996 California voters' initiative known as Proposition 215.The California initiative allows seriously ill patients to grow and use marijuana for pain relief as long as they have a doctor's recommendation. Similar measures have been adopted in a number of other states.In 1998, the Justice Department won an injunction from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco prohibiting the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other similar medicinal marijuana clubs from distributing cannabis.The Oakland club openly distributed marijuana to numerous people on May 21, 1998. Breyer rejected the club's request to modify his injunction to allow marijuana for seriously ill patients.Appeals Court Allows Marijuana For Medical Necessity:A U.S. appeals court, however, agreed with the club last year. It ruled Breyer should amend the injunction to allow the clubs to resume service for those who can prove that cannabis was a medical necessity.The appeals court said Breyer failed to give enough consideration to the possibility that marijuana was an indispensable treatment for people served by the club, including AIDS and cancer patients.The appeals court ruled that medical necessity could be a defense to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of a federal law, the Controlled Substances Act.In July, Breyer said the club could give marijuana to sick people facing ``imminent harm'' from serious medical conditions and for whom legal alternatives to marijuana do not work or cause intolerable side effects.The Justice Department got the Supreme Court to issue a stay of Breyer's order, and it also sought review from the appeals court.The Justice Department also appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the case presented ``an issue of exceptional and continuing importance.''The Justice Department said the appeals court ruling disregarded the provisions of federal law banning marijuana distribution outside strictly controlled circumstances and undermined enforcement of federal drug laws.Attorneys for the club said the appeal should be denied because it presented no compelling reason for review. They said the ruling did not depart from established precedent.The decision ``has no impact on the government's ability to prosecute individuals for violating federal drug laws,'' they said.The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case next year, with a decision due by the end of June. Washington (Reuters) Published: Monday, November 27, 2000Copyright © 2000 Reuters Limited. Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Supreme Court Accepts Medical-Marijuana Issue http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7783.shtmlOfficial Reefer Madnesshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6894.shtmlFeds' Needless Pot War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6889.shtmlCourt Sends Firm Signal on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6886.shtmlMarijuana Distribution Ban Alarms Patientshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6885.shtml 

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help





Comment #28 posted by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on May 01, 2001 at 10:27:08 PT:
Weed
Sux
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Stripey on December 02, 2000 at 11:15:33 PT
I'm sorry.
I went out and got all f-ked up. I then reread my reply. I sorry.I realized that that bullshit isn't what's important. Just getting high. Happy tokin'.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by Stripey on December 01, 2000 at 14:02:13 PT
*laughter*
You're talking about Buchanan, not Bush. Both parties are so middle of the road it's not funny. To think there's a non-issue-specific difference (ie: stand on gun control, abortion, etc) is ludicrous. Profit? You think that the Rep actually believe that they make more money helping dictators and fighting a drug war than they would sin-taxing the hell out of cannabis?! That's idiocy. It's not morals or safety anymore, but neither party will ever legalize marijuana. Why? Because more people will always believe it's bad. To even decriminalize would be to admit that they've been wrong for 50-some years. They'll never do that. I've come to the conclusion that legalization is impossible. It just is. Just like the United States will never be gender and race blind. Anyone who believes any of us here will see legalization in our lifetimes is living in a dreamworld.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by david on November 30, 2000 at 10:31:37 PT:
We Are The World
Dear Stripey:Reading your response to my comment did nearly make me want to puke, but I lit up a blunt instead, then, I got a good night's rest and decided I had to respond in turn. "The Democrats" are indeed out to save the world, by acknowledging the dangers inherent in rolling over and playing dead just because some gun-toting fascist bible-thumpers are scared to death that somebody might actual have fun! Lets not kid ourselves, we all hope to be comfortable and happy, some of us don't get our rocks off telling other people how to live their lives, we're too busy living our own. Legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with health risks or moral standards, it's all about the profit, and just exactly who profits when the republican based big business government props up dictatorsin third world countries,allowing them to illegally export "controlled substances" then uses billions of tax dollars to fight a "War" against those very same drugs, while carefully maintaining a strangle hold on the very people they claimto be protecting? Wake up and smell the cannabis! An unassuming little plant with no designs on my pocketbook versus a national political party that is in the process of staging an political coup by disenfranchising thousands of voters--GEE, let me think? who do I believe? Myself or G-Dubbya and his thugs? NORML forever!!!!  p.s  do you think gore is more worried about taking your guns than medicating our sick and elderly people, which is what this page is about anyway. i think if proposed, legislation gon marijuana use, instead of this 1.5 mil junk that doesnt even work.the democrats would be the first in line to vote for it, the republicanswould be the first to throw out or change those votes!			and thats my word!			    peace, david
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Stripey on November 28, 2000 at 23:18:53 PT
Actually, Dave. . .
We're in the big shitski if Gore wins. Why? It's the democrats that are all about taking away things from the people to "protect" us. Like gun control. Al and Tipper are all about saving the world. Like Tipper's music sensoriship malarky. You think that Al and Tip are better than "get government out of lives" republicans? Hell, Bush has probably used cocaine in the last 10 years! They want to stop gov spending on useless crap like the war on drugs (even though they can't come right out and say it like that.)  Gore will make things worse. Bush will probably ignore it for as long as the Republican Party will let him.The Democrats are the ones out to save the world, not the republicans.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by FoM on November 28, 2000 at 21:51:15 PT
Welcome To CannabisNews
Hello DAVID,I just wanted to take a minute and thank you for your comment. Feel free to jump in anytime!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by DAVID on November 28, 2000 at 13:56:21 PT:

MY FIRST COMMENT!

im not sick, yet i see this court fight as a way for people to start looking at marijuana; not as just an illegal drug, and a starting point for substance abuse of all kinds. but as a "plant", in its most pure form.a beautiful flower, that has been growing and liveing longer than the human race.who are we to take this away from the people?i belive that the only reason this is still an issue, is that the govermentknows that they cant just change their position, and allow marijuana in any form, and imedatlly start taxing it. that would look foolish.so it will remain illegal untill someone grows the balls to admit they have been wrong for 150 years!!  AND IF BUSH WINS FLORIDA, LOOK FORWARD TO S.C.JUSTICES THAT WILL LIVE FOR 100 MORE YEARS,AND MAINTAIN THE SAME REPUBLICAN, BIG BUISNESS, HEADS IN THEIR ASSES, IDEAS, AND "LAWS".			BLAZE ONE 4 ME!!!				DAVE
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #20 posted by Dan B on November 28, 2000 at 00:54:43 PT:

Can't Find The S.C. Info Anywhere

I've been all over the Internet, checked out the Constitution and even the Supreme Court web site (read through their rules and everything), and have still not found any information about what happens with a Supreme Court split-decision. I did find out that a quorum for the Supreme Court is 6 justices, so the possibility of a split decision is not unlikely. Any lawyers here know what happens if there is a split-decision in the Supreme Court?Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #19 posted by Dan B on November 27, 2000 at 23:56:22 PT:

Actually, Dr. Ganj, You Weren't Far Off...

Since Justice Breyer (of the Supreme Court) has stepped aside for this decision because his brother is the Justice Breyer from the 9th District Court who made the decision that the Supreme Court is now (once again) deciding, there will actually be 8 justices voting on this one. What happens if there is a 4-4 split? Who becomes the deciding vote? I'll check it out and get back with you when I know.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #18 posted by Dr. Ganj on November 27, 2000 at 21:55:58 PT

6-3

After posting that last message, I checked with the link below. There are NINE supreme Court justices, not seven, so I'm going to change my prediction to six to three in favor of the Department of Justice, which will keep things as they are-terribly wrong.Just look at their faces on that photo, and you'll see that there is no way those straight-laced heartless puppets are going to allow this huge cash cow of a Drug War to stop milking now.Dr. Ganj
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/fullcourt.html
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #17 posted by Dr. Ganj on November 27, 2000 at 21:44:49 PT

Supreme Ream, Or Supreme Dream?

Well folks, here it is! The medical use of marijuana has finally made it to the highest(pun intended)court in the land! However, these seven judges are far less compassionate than the three judges in California federal court that allowed the Oakland club to reopen and dispense to seriously ill individuals. This ruling of course was quickly appealed by the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ordered that the Oakland club stop dispensing until they ruled on the case. That's where we stand now. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Oakland club, it would in effect legalize medical marijuana across the country, as we are dealing with FEDERAL law here. So, here's my prediction: Too much is at stake, and by ruling in the Oakland's club favor, this would be a dagger in the Drug War's heart. So, count on these corrupt brutes to make it look good by being divided, but in a 5-2 ruling against allowing marijuana being used by seriously ill people, and as a medical defense in court.So, after that, we'll still have marijuana in schedule I category, and no hope for those in prison on federal marijuana charges-like Todd McCormick looking for a viable appellate argument.Also, for all those cannabis clubs out there, they will be under a little more pressure, but there is no stopping them-the demand for this herbal medicine is too great. If the feds try and close a few clubs after the new ruling, they will simply become more discreet.I wish the Supreme Court could see that 1/5 of our nation has voted in some form of medical marijuana law, and our own government even distributes marijuana to eight remaining people from the IND program. (see link below) But considering this would open the door to national use of medical marijuana, don't think for a moment these judges will let that happen. Like I said before, the only way out of this mess, is to continue having different states vote for their own medical marijuana laws, and after more than 50% of our nation has passed their own state laws, this will put enough pressure on the FDA, the DEA, and possibly Congress, to reschedule this plant to a realistic category II. Don't think seven Supreme Court judges are going to think like we do, and have the human decency to allow dying people a little comfort. Not a chance.Dr. Ganj  
http://www.marijuananews.com/a_legal_overview_of_the_medical_.htm
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #16 posted by aocp on November 27, 2000 at 20:44:38 PT:

Losing ground and it's raining

>Has our Supreme Court stooped so low or are they just poorly informed on the medical marijuana cigarette hoax.Observer's right. This isn't about the medical side of this debate. It's about NOT GETTING JAILED if a consenting adult wishes to use MJ in their own, consenting, adult manner to relieve their personal suffering. Sounds like a job for the SC.>What's next? Will we be voting to give kids moldy bread instead of penicillin?You know, they make crutches with all kinds of neat metals and woods now. You don't need to hide behind the children any more. There are reasonable alternatives.>This is clearly a decision for the Food & Drug Administration--not voters or the Supreme Court.The FDA was established to prevent "Snake Oil" potions such as pot from being sold to the public.Would it still be a snake oil if it weren't sold as MMJ, but just MJ? I don't know anybody that uses therapeutic tobacco, but i sell an absolute ton of that death-hiding-as-snake-oil all the time at one of my jobs. Where the hell is the FDA?>The only ingredient that might have some promise for intervening in nausea is already available under the trade name Marinol (tm). It is rarely used because there are at least 8 layers of superior medications available without the side effects.Really. Maybe you should try some chemo and then get back to all us inhumans. We anxiously await your continually-ringing endorsement for marinol when you can't hold the pill down.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #15 posted by ripper on November 27, 2000 at 19:26:30 PT

Not Medicine?

 If its not medicine why make marinol? 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #14 posted by freedom fighter on November 27, 2000 at 18:46:52 PT

Hey Mary Friend,

I love when someone says Marinol tm. Did you know it cost 80$ per milligram?It equals 1,452,800$ a pound of Marinol tm.Whereas,   20 a gram of a good Hawaiian Pot cost 8,960$ a pound.Did you know that it takes a seed to grow a plant called cannabis? One does not have to be a mad doctor to brew up a snake oil potion, what you called, "POT". All you have to do is plant the seed. Just like you do with your tomato plant or any other seed bearing plants. Do you wanna know what a snake oil potion? Here is the formulaOne cup of waterOne cup of sugarOne cup of dirtDo you know what it is? Pepsi or a Coke!Oh my, you did not know Sugar is a bad drug?By the way, I never knew you and I did not care what you put in your mouth. But, hey, I do care what you are sprouting out of your mouth, you are stepping my toes!I never cared if you took rat posion in your mouth. It is legal to buy rat posion! It is your right and I want you to know that I do not wish you to care what I put in my mouth! I am American man who have rights to ingest anything I please. If you are an American, you had better understand this and respect my right as I will do to yours! Otherwise, we will know no freedom.Get this in your skull, as long we keep putting people(human beings) in prisons for growing cannabis, your children will smoke the "snake oil potion"(It is worse than cannabis!).Just not sure if you knew that a pound of Marinol tm cost 1.5 million dollars!Like dddd said,"Welcome to the Alice in the Wonderdealand",you are welcome to debate this.5 cents a day to plant a seed verus your one pound of Marinol tm.I, the freedom fighter, wait to hear from you.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on November 27, 2000 at 17:46:38 PT

Yoo Hoo Kaptinemo!

Hi CongressmanSuet! It's great we got observer's comments for sure and now we need to send out an all points bulletin to KAPTINEMO! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #12 posted by CongressmanSuet on November 27, 2000 at 17:42:13 PT

I called for Kap., but 

I got Observer. Good show.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #11 posted by observer on November 27, 2000 at 14:17:36 PT

Moldy Logic

Mary Friend writeth: Has our Supreme Court stooped so low or are they just poorly informed on the medical marijuana cigarette hoax.Gosh, Mary, that just looks like a silly false dilemma. Also, was it part of a "legalizer" plot back in ancient China to use cannabis as medicine? Queen Victoria was a "legalizer", too, do you suppose?Cannabis has a long history as a medicine, which continues up to the present day. It is included in the first pharmacopoeia developed by the Chinese, circa 1625 B.C. In 1830, cannabis became a well-accepted part of American medicine for almost 100 years. In 1860, the Ohio State Medical Society lauded the medicinal properties of cannabis. It was used by Queen Victoria of England in the 1890s for menstrual cramps. Cannabis was also an important ingredient in patent medicines which enjoyed their heyday from 1875 to 1925.Cannabis was in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia from the mid 1800s until 1941. In the early part of this century it was common for universities to grow their own cannabis for pharmacy students, and have them do an alcohol extract as a class assignment. My father and uncle, both pharmacists, were required to do this at the University of Minnesota School of Pharmacy in the late 1920s.Cannabis Is Medicine (July 2000, editorial)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n990/a03.html  Cannabis was listed in the US Pharmacopoeia as a recognised medicine from 1850 until 1942. It was sold cheaply by drugstores in the form of fluid extracts, and was smoked in cigarette form by asthmatics. . .Smoke Without Fire (Nov. 2000, book review)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1648/a01.html (So much for the prohibitionists' knee-jerk propaganda line 'medicine isn't smoked'. Note that the 420+ medicinal chemicals in cannabis do not need to be smoked for theraputic benefit, anyhow.) What's next? Will we be voting to give kids moldy bread instead of penicillin? Oh, isn't that clever? Bring it home to "the children" -- try to make people think it is all a "hoax", a plot to poison the "kids".Tell me: if someone right this minute decides they want to grow their own penicillin mold and make their own penicillin, do we arrest them? Throw them in jail for life for 'manufacture'? Take their children? Take their house and property? Do we shoot them in the back because we think they might have a gun when we raid the wrong house for penicillin? Do we prohibit research on penicillin because it might send the wrong message that moldy bread is somehow "ok"? (Good example, Mary: thanks.)This is clearly a decision for the Food & Drug Administration--not voters or the Supreme Court. The FDA was established to prevent "Snake Oil" potions such as pot from being sold to the public. Nah. The "FDA" doesn't make and enforce laws that people are jailed for. How in the world did prohibitionists get their priorities so skewed that, in order to (they claim) "save us from ourselves" they feel they need to jail ever increasing numbers of adults? That's like shooting your kids on the beach, in order that they might not run the risk of drowning in the ocean. Such misplaced priorities might almost be amusing, if it were not for the fact that adults are rotting in US prisons right now solely for the "crime" of using cannabis.The only ingredient that might have some promise for intervening in nausea is already available under the trade name Marinol (tm). But how would you know that? In fact, you don't know that. You hope that might be the case, for it might bolster the argument for prohibition, you wishfully assume.There are many chemicals (over 420) in cannabis; some have already been found to modify the activity of others.for example see:Cannabis Research - different effects of different cannabinoids and combinations http://www.ukcia.org/lib/medline/10.htm et al.It is rarely used because there are at least 8 layers of superior medications available without the side effectsIt is rarely used because when someone is puking, it is difficult to hold down a THC pill. (Because ... they're vomiting.) Two or three puffs of good cannabis, however, are possible to take, and instantly relieve the vomining. (BTW, compazine, the first-line antiemetic med, is far from being free of side effects. And dosn't work as well as whole cannabis. Mary needs to be exposed to chemotherapy patients who have taken all the legal (and extremely expensive) antiemetic meds, and who are still heaving their guts out.)And, getting back to the original points of medican cannabis laws like Prop. 215. Such laws do never state that cannabis is more or less effective than other meds, such laws instead stipulate that patients not be jailed. Of course, it it better propaganda for prohibitionists to scream "LEGALIZERS! LEGALIZERS!" or "MEDICINE ISN"T SMOKED!", loud and long, than to talk about simply stopping the jailing of people for using cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #10 posted by observer on November 27, 2000 at 13:17:05 PT

Prohibitionism Appalling

It is testimony to the financial involvement of currency trader George Soros, Apollo Group CEO John Sperling and Progressive Insurance CEO Peter Lewis that this hoax has risen to this level.That's is amusing! I'm assuming Ms Brownley is jesting. Still, Let's play along here, like she's really serious. (Shhhh!)Brownley conveniently forgets the multi-billions pouring into anti-marijuana propaganda (they say "anti-drugs", but we know better, don't we?), most of it aimed at keeping adults in jail for using cannabis. (This is euphemized as "countering legalizers", etc.) As Joseph D. McNamara, retired police chief of San Jose, pointed out only yesterday, Quite frequently, opponents of the drug-reform measures, instead of sticking to the issues, launched personal attacks on three men who have contributed around $4 million to state campaigns for drug reform.The naysayers imply that three secretive wealthy men duped the voters into believing that the various initiatives were beneficial.Actually, Peter Lewis, a car insurer, John Sperling, who founded Phoenix University, and financier George Soros were quite open about their contributions, which were a matter of record.Answering attempts to attribute sinister motives to them, the three said their intent was similar to that of thousands of other volunteers, myself included, who feel that the drug war has failed and is eroding our civil liberties.(I am an unpaid board member of the non-profit Lindesmith-Drug Policy Foundation in New York, which distributes $3 million a year in grants, some of it from George Soros, to further drug research, education and hygiene programs.)The federal government probably spends more than $1 billion a year in efforts to boost public support for its war against drugs; nevertheless, the much-smaller sums contributed to drug reform have energized many Americans.Citizens Quietly Rebel Against Drug War, Nov. 26, 2000 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread7774.shtml So, as we see once again, prohibitionists complaining of "Soros' money" is the height of hypocrisy. Par for the course.Why is it that the the dollars of "Soros" et al. drive the prohibitionists like Brownley batty? Could it be because prohibitionism is such an obviously backrupt ideology that the supporters of prohibition can make their "case" only when NO disagreement is allowed? That's exactly what prohibitionists are telling us, I believe. This is why any dissent is denounced out of hand, the issue is never examined, and those with the backbone to speak out in favour of returning to traditional Americans freedoms are attacked as "legalizers" and swiftly dismissed. This is why prohibitionists run from debates; refuse to debate those who argue against prohibition. They can't take it.It is appalling that Dr. Alan Leshner, Director of the $780,000,000 National Institute on Drug Abuse has taken no leadership in informing either Congress or the public of this hoax. Leshner, Soros and Sperling should be exiled.Brownley exceeds even some of the more rabid prohibitionists here; not even NIDA's blatantly biased reefer-madness goal-directed "research" will satisfy her. Here's a clue for Ms Brownley: America doesn't exile people, even people that send supposed "messages" of which Ms Brownley does not approve to "Our Children". (And I demand to know who gets to decide what, exactly are "the messages" that a given policy sends to "Our Children"? And when did this person or persons get the God-like power of life and death, freedom or jail, over adults who use cannabis? Is it the case that any lie may be told, as long as is added the suffix, "to send the right message to The Children"?)No, what's "appalling" is that America ("Land of the Free") decided during the past century to lock up Americans for using a plant, a plant that Americans were traditionally free to use. The decision was based on racism and lies. (see: http://www.redhousebooks.com/galleries/assassin.htm http://crrh.org/hemptv/misc_reefer.html etc.) It is "appalling" that we continue to imprison adults for the sole "offense" of using cannabis. Nothing changed in mankind, the effects of medicine or theology in 1937 to justify hurting people and placing people in prison simply for using cannabis after that year, when cannabis had been freely used by people for millenna before then. What's "appalling" is the very mindset of people who would trash every traditional American right that can be named, in a misbegotten Holy (drug) War. 
read the history: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #9 posted by Stripey on November 27, 2000 at 13:02:02 PT

Mary and Ellen, 

The fact of the matter is, is that if you don't use it, it doesn't apply to you. If you want to "protect" your children from marijuana, teach them how you feel about it. Teach them that you think that it's bad. If they're good kids, they'll stay away from it. I know a kid like that. A kid that's damn near 20. He won't smoke it because he's convinced it's bad. I have no problem with it. He's willing to admit, though, that there's no scientific evidence for it to be a Schedule I.Please stop trying to save the world. If you want the world to be a better place, get envolved with making better parents, not using the government to shield children from what you think is bad. Even if marijuana was deserving of it's Schedule I classification, and it was the worst thing to put into your body on the planet (and it isn't, even you can admit that. . . There's always morphine and heroine) it isn't going to go away. The government will never eleminate it from society no matter how illegal it is. If you want kids off marijuana, surround them in your sphere of ignorance; don't play crusader and take away something that isn't the problem.Yes, in some cases Marinol is helpful to patients. In many, though, it isn't, although smoking or eating cannabis is. Besides, the so-called side effects of cannabis (assumedly the relaxation and mild euphoria) are part of it's medicinal and theraputic properties. I'm sorry that we live in a world deluded by old racist laws and a beaurocracy that refuses to admit that it's wrong. I'm not sorry, however, that you both refuse to challenge that pretense.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #8 posted by dddd on November 27, 2000 at 12:51:59 PT

Welcome

 It's wonderful to see some opposing viewpoints here.Dont be shy. I must respectfully disagree with Marys' contention.I guess what she is trying to say,is that marijuana is not necessary for those who are sick,and dying,,because they can just make an appointment with their doctor,and have him/her write a prescription for marinol,or Budex,,,and then go down to their local pharmacy,and pay some huge legal drug company a buck a pill,so they can keep their food down. Do you think that these sick people are lying?Do you think they just want to get stoned,so they are just pretending that it makes them feel better?Would you be saying the same thing if coffee was illegal,but if you had a prescription from your doctor,you could buy caffeine pills for a dollar each?....Heck,why not outlaw beer,and make beer pills avaliable by prescription only! And what about those darn American voters,who decided medical marijuana was OK with them?We dont see the federal government messing with any other state initiatives that are passed by a majority of the voters. What is really wrong with marajuana Mary?..And why,or how did you decide it is so evil and bad?lets talk....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #7 posted by Morgan on November 27, 2000 at 12:22:21 PT

Sinking Ship

It's always a sure sign that a ship is going down when the rats come scurrying out of the woodwork. If anybody has any doubts about us winning this war, just check out Mary and Ellen's posts. Just the fact that prohabitionists are actually posting here with their hysterical ranting and misguided 'facts', is a major sign that they are scared shitless about how they are losing, and their War on Some Drugs is becoming more and more known for what it truly is, a war against the American people by big business, and the biggest hoax in the history of the world.I think sometime in the future, when all this is over, Soros, Sperling, and Lewis will recieve richly deserved Medals of Honor, while Mary Friend and Ellen Brownley will be in jail for treason. But it's not too late girls. Do some homework and you'll come around. Or stay in your boxes, and suffer the consequences.********************************************
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #6 posted by CongressmanSuet on November 27, 2000 at 12:12:18 PT

Cmon, Kaptnemo...

You got the time to make "our" arguments...Right now Im looking for my high-blood pressure medication, you know the patentend one that costs 140 a month...
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #5 posted by ras james RSIFWH on November 27, 2000 at 12:11:14 PT

HEALING THE NATIONS

the federal government gives right now eight citizens medical marijuana. the federal government cannot do one thing itself; and then forbid states to do the same thing. REV 22: 1&2 states the leaves of the tree of life shall become the healing of the nations...cannabinoid receptors in the cerbral cortex and in the placenta; cannabis achenes highest in essential fatty acids; no overdose deaths in five thousand years of medical use; and an increase in alpha waves; yes all these facts mean homo sapien sapiens have evolved with cannabis sativa. perhaps scientist should give man a new scietific name: "homo cannabinoid sapiens". yes, for one million years we have eaten the seed heads and thrown the buds into our fires. after all that time, cannnabis smoke and seeds have become good for humans.  give all praise and thanks to JAH RASTAFARI.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #4 posted by Mary Friend on November 27, 2000 at 11:10:39 PT

"supremes" to hear medical pot case

Has our Supreme Court stooped so low or are they just poorly informed on the medical marijuana cigarette hoax.What's next? Will we be voting to give kids moldy bread instead of penicillin?This is clearly a decision for the Food & Drug Administration--not voters or the Supreme Court.The FDA was established to prevent "Snake Oil" potions such as pot from being sold to the public.The only ingredient that might have some promise for intervening in nausea is already available under the trade name Marinol (tm). It is rarely used because there are at least 8 layers of superior medications available without the side effects.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #3 posted by Ellen Brownley on November 27, 2000 at 11:03:04 PT

supreme court to hear medical mariuana cigarette c

It is testimony to the financial involvement of currency trader George Soros, Apollo Group CEO John Sperling and Progressive Insurance CEO Peter Lewis that this hoax has risen to this level.It is appalling that Dr. Alan Leshner, Director of the $780,000,000 National Institute on Drug Abuse has taken no leadership in informing either Congress or the public of this hoax. Leshner, Soros and Sperling should be exiled.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 27, 2000 at 10:52:45 PT:

My Opinion

I'll share how I feel about all this. I honestly don't understand how just the other day the DEA agreed to the study of 60 AIDS Patients and we funded the study from South Africa and why is there any question that Cannabis has at a minimum SOME medical properties? Why is it a Schedule I Drug? Medical Pot To Be Studied in 60 Caseshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7744.shtmlStudy Finds Pot Safe for AIDS Patientshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6390.shtmlStudy Finds Marijuana Use Safe for HIV Patients http://cannabisnews.com/news/6/thread6383.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on November 27, 2000 at 10:32:14 PT:

Any Speculation?

I'd be interested in what people think will happen. Despite the clear illegality of US policy for 63 years, I am not optimistic. This court has allowed the erosion of civil liberties in a manner that defies belief. I suspect that the fight will need to continue.
[ Post Comment ]




  Post Comment




Name:       Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL: 
Link Title: