cannabisnews.com: Smoke Screen Smoke Screen Posted by FoM on December 01, 2000 at 13:00:30 PT Union-Tribune Editorial Source: San Diego Union Tribune Advocates of marijuana legalization were chastened back in September when the U.S. Supreme Court barred a cannabis "buyers club" in Oakland from distributing marijuana.Nevertheless, they took solace in the fact that the high court did not go so far at the time as to strike down Proposition 215, the California ballot measure approved by voters in 1996, which authorized possession and use of marijuana use for "medicinal" purposes. The justices decided this week to resolve, once and for all, whether Proposition 215 and similar medical-marijuana laws in eight other states -- Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado -- pass constitutional muster.At issue is whether these recently enacted state laws allowing "medicinal" marijuana supersede the long-standing federal Controlled Substances Act, which includes marijuana among the drugs whose manufacture and distribution are illegal.It is no secret that the crusade to enact "medicinal" marijuana in California and other states is driven by advocates of drug legalization, including such deep-pocket supporters as George Soros, the billionaire financier.If they can persuade voters to approve marijuana use for putative medicinal purposes, they reason, they can eventually get those same voters to approve marijuana for non-medicinal use. And so on, until they succeed in legalizing drug use altogether.The case now before the U.S. Supreme Court dates to 1998, when the Justice Department secured an injunction from a federal district court in San Francisco barring the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other similar "medicinal" marijuana clubs from distributing the narcotic.However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district court, declaring that medical necessity could be a defense to the charge of distributing drugs in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.Of course, if the 9th Circuit's ruling stands, it would undermine the rule of law. For the appellate court has decided, capriciously so, that federal law may be disregarded under certain circumstances -- like "medical necessity."Indeed, it stands to reason that, if federal drug laws can be ignored under certain circumstances, then all manner of federal laws might be similarly ignored -- including tax laws, gun laws, environmental laws, civil rights laws, etc.If exceptions are to be made to the federal Controlled Substances Act, if the possession and use of marijuana is to be legalized for ostensible medicinal purposes, then it is up to Congress to amend the law.Proposition 215 and the other similar state laws represent an attempt by marijuana legalization advocates to do an end run around Congress, to subvert federal drug law. It is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down these state laws as unconstitutional.Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)Published: December 1, 2000Copyright: 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.Address: PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191Fax: (619) 293-1440Contact: letters uniontrib.comWebsite: http://www.uniontrib.com/Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebXRelated Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Medical Marijuana Case to Top Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7823.shtmlOakland Marijuana Case Goes to US Supreme Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7800.shtmlU.S. Justices To Weigh Medical Marijuana Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7797.shtmlSupreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7784.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by dddd on December 02, 2000 at 05:10:30 PT Doctor Outstanding Dr. Russo. They will be lucky if the paramedics are familiar with soul CPR.These type cases are extremely difficult to revive......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on December 02, 2000 at 04:49:13 PT: Misguided, and Inaccurate "The justices decided this week to resolve, once and for all, whether Proposition 215 and similar medical-marijuana laws in eight other states -- Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado -- pass constitutional muster."Sorry, friend, but I do not think you are correct. The immediate issues before the court is merely whether there is a medical necessity defense available to medical marijuana patients, and whether the OCBC can distribute cannabis to such patients. Certainly, the court can strike down these laws if it wishes, but this particular group has a habit of narrow decisions that lead to more and more cases down the road (e.g., the string of decisions on the abortion controversy). Thus, the issues may not be resolved at all by this case. "Indeed, it stands to reason that, if federal drug laws can be ignored under certain circumstances, then all manner of federal laws might be similarly ignored -- including tax laws, gun laws, environmental laws, civil rights laws, etc."This contention is logically absurd. Taxes, simple gun possession, and discrimination may be onerous and worthy of redress in court, but they do not give people cancer, waste their bodies or give them chronic intractable pain. I suppose I could envision a case where someone has to drop a cannister of toxic waste to have their hands free to push a child away from a car, thus contravening pollution laws, but this whole line of reasoning seems spurious and weak. God forbid that this bitter person have one of the conditions that require cannabis for relief. His (or I doubt it, her (unless this is Joyce Nalepka undercover)) tune would likely change in a hurry. Where is compassion in such a person? Diplomacy? Understanding? Is is dormant or definitively dead? A person such as this needs CPR for his soul. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by dddd on December 01, 2000 at 16:46:25 PT ondcp payola Observer brings up a question that I would love to find out about.Do newspapers and news organizations like the AP,that print anti biased article receive credit,or payment from the czars slush fund. I seriously doubt such information is availiable to the public.It probably falls under some sort of "national security" loophole,that excludes it from the Freedom of Infomation Act. Does anyone know?....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Frank S. World on December 01, 2000 at 16:21:13 PT What?! The San Diego Union Tribune is my nominee for prohibitionist rag of the year. With the efforts of MAP, www.mapinc.org, it seems most US papers have become cognizant of the fact the war on drugs is an utter failure, the Union-Tribune hasn't gotten the message.Their support of arresting patients for their choice of medicine, and stating that legalizers are using mmj as a smoke screen is ludicrous. They should be examining the motives of those who support the status quo because they are profiting off of it, instead of accusing Soros and others of ulterior motives. THe US government is hemorrhaging our tax dollars by the billions to prop up this madness, yet that is inconsequential.These guys are so out of touch it's amazing. Hard to believe they are from California, where the voters have clearly rejected the prohibitionist spew they churn out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on December 01, 2000 at 14:36:20 PT Demonizing The Cannabis User... Notice several things in this piece.the prejudicial language -- Smoke Screen ... possession and use of marijuana use for "medicinal" purposes. ... allowing "medicinal" marijuana ... The slippery slope scare story --If they can persuade voters to approve marijuana use for putative medicinal purposes, they reason, they can eventually get those same voters to approve marijuana for non-medicinal use. And so on, until they succeed in legalizing drug use altogether.That's a great example of what is known as the "slippery slope fallacy." (aka "Domino Reasoning"). Absolutely classic.see: "slippery slope fallacy"http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.htmlhttp://www.lincoln.ac.nz/emd/subjects/phil102/fallacy/slippery.htmhttp://www.nic.edu/phil201a/lectures/Lecture_3-2ss_fd_sm_rh.htm#Slippery Slope http://members.aol.com/randymayes/slipslope.htmlhttp://www.primenet.com/~byoder/ss.htm etc. absolutely NO mentions of prison or jail: which is the whole point of these initiatives the echoing of McCaffery's suggested propaganda themes and even phrases: "smoke screen", "George Soros", etc. The stressing of Soros' money, and the false insinuation that Soros spends "billions" on this:It is no secret that the crusade to enact "medicinal" marijuana in California and other states is driven by advocates of drug legalization, including such deep-pocket supporters as George Soros, the billionaire financier.Soros and others have not spent "billions" on drug reform: they have spent several million. (This point may be lost on the many Americans, however, who cannot discern the difference between million and billion, granted.) No mention, of course, of the US Government's billions of dollars spent on anti-legalization propaganda, demonizing adults who use marijuana. see: http://www.mapinc.org/find?K=ONDCP+dollars&Y=All Will the San Diego Union Tribune recieve ONDCP money for this editorial, also?___mapinc search of other San Diego Union Tribune stories ...http://www.mapinc.org/find?BO=and&BK=&BT=All+Words&TO=and&TK=&TT=All+Words&SO=and&SK=San+Diego+Union+Tribune&ST=All+Words&AO=and&AK=&AT=All+Words&GACop=inside&GAC=&MM1=1&DD1=1&YY1=2000&MM2=12&DD2=31&YY2=2000&PA=1&MAX=20&DE=Low&SRT=Latest&SUB=Search [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: