cannabisnews.com: Federal Drug Law Faces Test Federal Drug Law Faces Test Posted by FoM on December 05, 2000 at 16:36:09 PT Editorial Source: Daily Breeze 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 last 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 laws 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 and civil rights laws.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.Note: Reject 'medicinal' marijuanaSource: Daily Breeze (CA)Published: December 5, 2000Copyright: 2000 Daily BreezeAddress: 5215 Torrance Blvd., Torrance CA 90503-4077Website: http://www.dailybreeze.com/Feedback: http://www.dailybreeze.com/contact.htmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by dav on July 23, 2001 at 01:12:15 PT hemp pot should be legal . [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Jae on June 20, 2001 at 13:00:55 PT: Home Drug Test Kits Get your home test kit fast and below wholesale. Many tests to choos from highest quality. Results in 3-5 min. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by James Markes on December 06, 2000 at 11:31:38 PT No Jurisdiction... Any choices a person makes to use or not use marijuana as medicine is outside of the U.S. governments authority. Their entire claim to jurisdiction rests on the famous Commerce Clause. The thing is, in order for them to "regulate" my medical choices requires me to first become "merchandise". As far as I know, even the federal government is forbidden to engage in "SLAVERY" practices... [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by dddd on December 06, 2000 at 04:26:56 PT unconstitutional? >" It is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down these statelaws as unconstitutional." It would be very akward,(although not that suprizing),for the S.C. to find these laws unconstitutional.They just might try to do it though.If you have ever read the texts of past S.C. decisions,you know how they can twist the words,and make some really twisted,far fetched interpretations of the Constitution.A good example is search and seizure exceptions. Something that is not mentioned very often,is that the prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional ammendment,and another one to repeal it...Things are way different nowdays....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Smokeless in Seattle on December 06, 2000 at 03:56:11 PT Not so fast there, ripper The article brings into view the serious question of federal law superceding state law - an issue, I may add, that sparked a 4 year long bloody civil war in the USA."Medical necessity", however, is a legitimate issue; it is something the justices need to consider. And, do not forget, the federal law WILL be changed if we pester our representatives in congress enough, should the states be struck down in this conflict. Don't throw up just yet. :)SiS [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by ripper on December 05, 2000 at 18:24:12 PT reading your propaganda. The more I read crap like this , the more I need to smoke my "Medicine" to keep my lunch down. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: