cannabisnews.com: Court, Bush Best Hopes For Medical Pot Court, Bush Best Hopes For Medical Pot Posted by FoM on December 03, 2000 at 15:48:42 PT By Chris Weikopf Source: Daily News of Los Angeles With some notable exceptions, the drug-legalization crowd tends to be dominated by those for whom easy access to narcotics is less a philosophical imperative than a personal preference. They want to end the war on drugs only because they'd rather smoke the peace pipe. And yet, when it comes to the issue of medical marijuana, it's the anti-drug absolutists who sound like they've just said yes. How else to explain the Clinton-Gore administration's adamant refusal to allow AIDS patients, cancer victims and other sufferers to alleviate their illness with doctor-recommended medicinal marijuana? As Al Gore's campaign rushes to the courts, purportedly in the name of democracy and states' rights, the Clinton-Gore administration also rushes to the courts -- seeking to thwart democracy and quash states' rights. It's pushing to kill Proposition 215, the California initiative legalizing medical marijuana that 65 percent of the state's voters backed in 1996. Gore might like to wax on about how "a vote is not just a piece of paper, a vote is a human voice," but ever since Proposition 215 made the ballot, the administration has done all it can to silence the clear voice of California voters. It has sought to shut down various cannabis clubs throughout the state, and its struggle against one in Oakland has taken the issue through the federal courts. Last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case some time next year -- presumably after it's resolved the presidential election. The administration contends that Proposition 215 interferes with its ability to enforce federal drug laws that prohibit virtually all marijuana use, with the exception of a few narrowly constrained medical experiments. The question before the Supreme Court is whether, like such experiments, the "medical necessity" that California cites in defense of Proposition 215 warrants an exemption from the stringent application of federal law. The U.S. Department of Justice rejects the "medical necessity" claim, arguing that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use." But that position seems to stem from an ideological commitment to a total war on drugs, not medical reality. The federal government is dazed by the prospect that acknowledging some limited good use for otherwise bad drugs might undermine its overall case for prohibition. Rather than risk this appearance of inconsistency, politicians from both parties seem content to let those who could use marijuana to alleviate their pain keep on suffering. Although there's a limited number of studies on the subject, there's no shortage of anecdotal evidence and doctors' testimony that, when used appropriately, marijuana can settle patients' stomachs, build up their weight, control pain, steady spastic muscles, even relieve glaucoma. It's been remarkably effective at helping some cancer patients stave off nausea and restore their appetites after chemotherapy treatments. Even a recent federal study lends some credibility to marijuana's medical value. In 1997, Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey -- who has consistently opposed Proposition 215 -- asked the federal Institute of Medicine to investigate the drug's medicinal qualities. The IOM concluded: "The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation." Nonetheless, Washington clings to its hazy concern that making a legal distinction between criminals and cancer victims will open the floodgates to rampant drug use and, eventually, legalization. Rather than combat abuse as it happens, it insists upon treating recreational and therapeutic marijuana use in exactly the same way. It's a case of zero tolerance begetting zero sense, culminating in a 30-year-old federal policy that has produced the cruelest of absurdities: denying, in the name of ideological purity, treatment to those who suffer. Proposition 215 -- like the eight other state medical-marijuana laws it has inspired across the country -- was an effort to restore some semblance of sobriety to American drug policy. Despite the administration's dogged resistance, there's a chance that it might just succeed -- if the Supreme Court places a greater value on states' rights, popular elections and compassion than does the Clinton-Gore administration. There's also the hope that a George W. Bush administration, should it ever come to pass, would show more deference to California law. Even though Republicans are, for the most part, every bit as inflexible and dogmatic about the war on drugs as Democrats, Bush has said that the question of medical marijuana rightfully belongs to the states. For a "compassionate conservative" and a champion of limited government, that's a reasonable position to take. Of course, it would also be a reasonable position for Gore, who, when denouncing HMOs during the campaign, repeatedly called to "give the decisions back to the doctors." Doctors know their patients' needs better than the federal government -- especially a federal government trapped in a decades-old addiction to excessive, failed policies. Chris Weinkopf is a Daily News Staff Writer. Write to him at: PO Box 4200, Woodland Hills, CA 91365-4200 or by e-mail at: chris.weinkopf dailynews.comSource: Daily News of Los Angeles (CA) Author: Chris Weikopf,Daily News Staff WriterPublished: December 3, 2000Copyright: 2000 Daily News of Los Angeles Address: P.O. Box 4200, Woodland Hills, CA 91365 Fax: (818)713-3723 Website: http://www.DailyNews.com/ Feedback: http://www.DailyNews.com/contact/letters.aspRelated Articles & Web Site:CannabisNews Search http://cannabisnews.com/search/California Compassionate Use Act of 1996http://www.drugsense.org/CCUA/Bush: Marijuana Laws Up to Stateshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/3/thread3373.shtmlGeorge W. Bush Backs States' Rights On Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread3355.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by Dan Hillman on December 05, 2000 at 12:34:38 PT Like Father, Like Son Kudos to Ethan Russo for helping pull the wool back from reformers eyes concerning GWB and drug reform initiative emanating from the exec. branch under his rule. To expand the point a bit, can anyone see GWB doing anything different from his one-term father? His choice of advisors and cabinet already show that Bush isn't going to be staking out any new territory...in short, he'll be doing exactly what Gore would've done, which is keep an ear tuned to the corporate masters behind the throne for marching orders on the war-on-drugs that wouldn't die. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Walter Gourlay on December 05, 2000 at 01:08:57 PT: Bush and Gore If the supreme court allows a medical necessity for medical marijuana patients that it will facillitate the legalization of marijuana for recreational uses as well. Once the public accepts that marijuana has medical values, many won't be so afraid of it. I feel that besides physical benefits marijuana helps with depression and anxiety.We have to wait and see if Bush wins before we know his true position on medical marijuana. Gore got a well-deserved clubbing from the 98,000 Florida Green voters. Most of these voters were former democrats and I think its safe to say they resented the Clinton-Gore drug war policies. I think Gore learned a lesson. I hope Bush did too. It also remains to be seen whether the democratic party is going to move further to the right, left or stay where it is. Since the '84 defeat to Reagan, democrats have moved further to the right. The "Nader Effect" cost Gore an easy victory in Florida. Time will reveal the total impact of Nader on the drug war, corporation power, the environment and the ideologies of the two main parties. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Idiots on December 04, 2000 at 08:19:37 PT: This is a stupid article. The presidency is not quite the position of power this article would have it seem. Really I don't see that medical marijuana use is that much of a step toward legalization. It might help keep things like bongs and grow guides legal, but thats really a bad compromise for pro-legalization activists. You all are chewing on it like its going to be some great advancment but your missing the big picture. Government regulation of peoples allowed freedoms are coming from every angle. I don't see how you can hope to legalize MJ until the people of this country get off their asses and start exersizing their so called democracy. Without votes this country is no less Communisum wrapped in a hydrid capitalist/socialist economy. Most of my herb smoking friends DO NOT VOTE and that right there is the essence of our failed democracy. Bush, Gore, Supreme Court and Congress all together don't begin the have the level of power that we posses as masses that pull this country along. Wether is legalization, voting reform, or stopping tax cuts for wealthy people all these things are easily withing the grasp of the people. However with the current situation of elections I don't see how you can hope to get people in there who have any intentions on representing their voting districs. They are not bound to do anything they say they will do during their campains. This goes for presidents or congressmen. Democracy is designed so that people are supposed to NOT re-elect people who are do not represent the majority will. However the major flaw is that the representatives are only elected by the majority of voters. So in essence and in fact a small percentage of the country dictates its will on the silent majority. Every 4 years they feed you all the same shit and most of you bend over and take it just like your supposed to. There are no real leaders and even if they were they would be thwarted down by rich individuals whom are quite happy with the puppets on the hill. Did we not form this country to get away from the rulling nobility inflicting their beleifs on us. The rich aristocrats who can buy peoples wills out from under them or brainwash them with television and statistics.Those people we escaped from have molded quite a nice country for themselves. 80% of this counties wealth belongs to 20% of the people. Socialism is starting to look better everyday. So how long till congressmen lay claim to breaking in our fiances like the nobles of medeval times. We already pay massive tribute to them. Their fat salaries and even fatter pensions while we get to live off of social security and senior citizens discounts. Their golf trips and privates flights all in the name of democracy. Welcome to America... this is a republic don't let the hype fool you. A representative democracy as they would call it. Far from a true democracy as Greece once had. Still some of the most successful empires of the world were ruled by single rulers. Where is Alexander the great to save us from our own apathetic democracy. I beleive the first step is cutting off rich peoples ability to easily control who gets into office. Its no coincidence that he or she who spends the most money on their campain wins the election 80% of the time. If we let people buy their way into public office then is this really a democracy. For the people .. by the people? Our strongest hope so far may have been Ross Perot who was able to capture 18% of the votes in the Cliton vs Bush campain. But once again it was his personal fortune that allowed him to get that kind of voting return. There are roughly 300 million people in this country if not a little more. The census states 276 million, but we must assume that they missed quite a few people. My friend did census work and he agrees that many people do not complete the census this could be just localized to my region, but I somehow really doubt that. If that represents a mere 10% (probably higher that than IMO) then we have an extra 27+ million people. Maybe even another 50 million or more. 205 million according the census are over 18. So I'd say we can easily assume there are at the very least 220 million people over 18.. probably 250 million. So we are in essence letting 50 million people dictate the future freedoms over 200 million other adults plus the 100 million under 18 people. So 50 million people are tell 300 million people how to live their lives. AND this is one of the better turnouts. How does that quality as 'by the people'? Another thing.. how in the world do we have a republican controlled congress when registered democrates out number republicans 2 to 1. The number of registered republicans is far below the 50 million mark yet they ARE controlling our government.Simple... wealthy people tend to be republican. They support their own and there 'contributions' get them what they want. That is the obvious reason why republicans are always trying to cut taxes for wealthy people... just like Bush proposes to do. Yeah .. I'll buy your way into office... you cut my taxes and with a republican controlled congress noone will do anything about it for another 10 years or so. No wait its trickle down economics .. they are really doing whats best for everyone, just ask them. HELLOAm I I the only sane one in this country cuz it sure feels like it. I mean damn... we put an actor into office .. TWICE. What the fuck is up with that. We could be voting by phone. I mean if all 200 million of us are willing to risk our credit cards through phone lines then why the hell would it be a big deal to vote via phone. Well... because that would not benefit the people who really control this country. The wealthy and their representative puppets. It would allow much high voting turn outs and the fat cats sure as hell don't want to go letting that happen. But as the masterminds of the world fear in some dark corner of their mind. Mass comminication will make direct democracy style government much more possible than ever before and every joe and their mom will be able to finaly see their opinions tallied up in real time without illegal ballets and misplaced ballet boxes to get in their way. All from the comfort of their homes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by cerebus on December 04, 2000 at 00:29:40 PT but... conversatism at its very core is about states rights over federal. and as big a topic that the supreme court is in this election it seems that bush might appoint a few nominees to the sc. if he puts true conservative judges and not puppet conservative judges then they will more than likely read any constitutional states rights issue and side with the state. a liberal beleives in power from washington and lets face it lees right for you and less freedom on the off chance you might do someting to hurt yourself. i see alot more scarry orwellian dogma from the left than the right. and true conservatives like willian f buckley and his magazine has often espoused an intolerance for the drug war. if bush wins and get judges in the supreme court assuming the court doesnt side with the states in this case is highly likely that any future challenges to the federal stranglehold on the states might be more favorible to the states in the future. and the true villan in the rebublican party is the intolerant christian colition who power thankfully has seemed to wain recently. down the road id see more promise for a bush court than a gore court. and if gore would just program into his dense head that he lost that 2 deadline extensions and 3 recounts he cant win it not to mention some 100+ thousand repulican counties votes thrown out and thier cheesy attempts to throw out military ballots, god give it up. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by nl5x on December 03, 2000 at 21:07:52 PT yes fom, ventura 2004 ! Bush backs states' rights on marijuanaHe opposes medical use but favors local controlOctober 20, 1999From The Dallas Morning Newshttp://www.dallasnews.com By Susan Feeney / The Dallas Morning NewsWASHINGTON - Gov. George Bush said he backs a state's right to decide whether to allow medical use of marijuana, a position that puts him sharply at odds with Republicans on Capitol Hill. "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," the governor said recently in Seattle in response to a reporter's question.Chuck Thomas, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a medical marijuana lobbying group, praised Mr. Bush as "courageous" and "consistent on states' rights. I would hope he would be an example for Republicans in Congress."Aides said Mr. Bush does not support legalizing marijuana for medical use. But his position supporting state self-determination opens the door to medical marijuana use in some places. President Clinton and most Republican lawmakers, by contrast, oppose all state medical marijuana legalization laws, saying they could lead to abuse.But Mr. Clinton - in a move philosophically in tune with Mr. Bush - has said Republicans in Congress went too far in seeking to block the District of Columbia's medical marijuana ballot initiative, which won 69 percent support last year.The president recently vetoed the district's $4.7 billion budget approved by Congress, in part because of a provision to overturn the medical marijuana law."For us, that's an issue of local control," of not "micromanaging local government," said White House spokesman Jake Siewert. The veto was not about the merits of the issue, he said.Among the Republicans leading the charge against the district's law are GOP House leaders and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Bush supporter and chairwoman of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee.The district should not be "a haven for marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes," Ms. Hutchison said on the Senate floor. "I don't think we should take an illegal drug and allow it to be legalized in our capital city."Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have approved medical marijuana laws, giving the issue prominence in key Western states.Mr. Bush, campaigning for president in Seattle on Saturday, told reporters he felt certain that such a move was "not going to happen in Texas." The state has no direct referendums or voter initiatives.As governor, Bush favored tougher laws for drug offenders, including signing legislation that allows judicial discretion to sentence first-time offenders possessing less than one gram of cocaine to a maximum of 180 days in jail. (Previously, first-offenders received automatic probation.) Bush also is a strong supporter of faith-based initiatives to fight addictionsGore said he would push for ''tougher drug penalties and enforcement,'' would increase drug interdiction efforts, would expand drug courts and would institute a $2 billion national media campaign targeted at preventing youth from using drugs. He is supportive of the Colombian plan. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by dddd on December 03, 2000 at 20:40:59 PT favorites I feel the same FoM,but I would have put Arianna more near the top.......lol........dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 03, 2000 at 18:49:37 PT I want some from both parties These are my favorites in both parties. I'll probably forget one or more. Here goes.Gary Johnson - RWellstone - DBarney Frank - DVentura - ? I don't know!PlusArianna Huffington - A Reformed RepublicanBill Maher - I'm not sure what party he is but I like some of his ideas, not all, but on drug policy I like what he says. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dddd on December 03, 2000 at 18:40:32 PT Right on Dr Russo I think your assessmment of the situation is right on Ethan. The "best hopes",just doesnt apply to the shrub,or his opponent on this issue.If anything,the shrub is the lessor of "hopes". The shrubster will be little more than an Alfred E. Newman puppet,,a hollow facade.This empty suit will simply be dancing for those who pull his strings.He's kinda like a delinquent Dan Quayle....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on December 03, 2000 at 16:54:47 PT: Bush to Keep Promise? Should Dubya take the White House, I do not believe for a second that he will show the initiative and courage to allow clinical cannabis to go forward. While I agree with most of the above opinions, I think the author is totally wrong about this critical point. Show me the herb! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: