cannabisnews.com: Letter Of The Law





Letter Of The Law
Posted by FoM on May 27, 2001 at 10:31:24 PT
By Robert Holland
Source: Richmond.com
There's a strong case to be made that patients suffering intense pain while in the throes of a terminal illness ought to have access to any drug that gives them relief, including marijuana or an opiate such as heroin. Addiction does not seem an overwhelming concern when a person is in such a situation. Nevertheless, a legitimate concern arises as to whether procedures to provide such potential relief of intractable pain have safeguards to prevent the spread of dangerous drugs into the general population. 
The U.S. Supreme Court's task in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was not to judge the pros and cons of marijuana for seriously ill patients. It was to decide if under the nation's drug laws there is a "medical necessity" exception that allows the distribution of so-called medical marijuana. Clearly, there isn't, other than for a limited program of federally sponsored research. On that basic point, the high court was unanimous, 8-0, in the decision it handed down last week. The ninth Justice, Stephen Breyer, sat this one out because the district court judge who ruled originally in this California case was his brother. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted, "Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. The statute expressly contemplates that many drugs have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people ... but it includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana." The three most liberal Justices (John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) agreed with the basic ruling, but in a concurring opinion, they slapped at Thomas et al. for rejecting the Oakland cooperative's argument "that a drug may be found medically necessary for a particular patient or class even when it has not achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment." The threesome labeled as an "unwarranted and unfortunate" excursion the court's suggestion that even mere possession of marijuana for medical purposes violates the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Time For A Change? As a practical matter, law enforcers may look the other way when a seriously ill person has individually obtained pot in the hope it will provide relief. Nevertheless, the job of the federal courts is to interpret the criminal code, not to rewrite it to meet various social agendas, even compelling ones. It is startling to hear advocates of medical marijuana hammering the Supreme Court for not deferring to "states' rights" and setting aside the federal law pertaining to dangerous drugs. Starting with voters' propositions in California and Arizona in 1996, a string of states, mostly in the West, have made it known they want their states' laws liberalized to permit medical marijuana. But those votes do not cancel out federal laws that have a constitutional basis in the Commerce Clause. At least that's been the case since the Civil War determined that states cannot secede. Maybe the pot advocates would like to declare a People's Republic of the Left Coast? By the way, prosecution of the California "pot clubs" that proliferated after passage of the medical marijuana proposition was initiated by the Clinton Justice Department, which correctly understood that the nation's drug laws would rapidly unravel if illegal manufacturing and distribution were just winked at. Now, should there be a medical exception in the law for marijuana? Maybe. After all, it's been more than 30 years since Congress specified the substances for control, and considerable research has taken place. Unfortunately, the two sides currently dominating the debate are polarized -- the one using medical marijuana as a stalking horse for outright legalization, and the other implacably opposing any softening of policy as capitulation. It's not a slam-dunk case either way. The Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Sciences) stated in a 1999 report that some of the active ingredients of marijuana -- particularly THC -- seem to be effective for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. However, the Institute said the cannabinoids can most safely be administered through refined medications with the harmful substances filtered out. (THC, for example, is available as an oral prescription.) Smoked marijuana (which seems to be the pot advocates' chief interest) delivers potentially harmful substances, the IOM said. Nevertheless, there is at least word-of-mouth evidence that some terminal-cancer or AIDS patients do not take well to THC but do find relief with marijuana. In the name of compassion, it would be reasonable for government policy to provide for clinical trials of smoked marijuana for patients who find no relief any other way. And perhaps through such research would come a safe and effective delivery system, such as an inhaler. But all this needs to be accomplished by enlightened policy protected by law. The issue ought to be de-politicized and looked at in the light of relieving suffering of individuals and protecting the public welfare. The opinions expressed here are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of richmond.com, its management or its owners. Note: The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the law the only way it could.Contact Robert Holland at: rholland richmond.com Newshawk: DdCSource: Richmond.comAuthor: Robert HollandPublished: Monday May 21, 2001Copyright: 2001 Richmond.comWebsite: http://www.richmond.com/Contact: http://www1.richmond.com/about/contact.cfmRelated Articles:OCBC Versus The US Governmenthttp://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmSituational Conservatives http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9877.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by QuietCrusader on May 30, 2001 at 07:17:53 PT:
It's a Start...
The Libertarian Party's Legislative ProgramonPolitical CorruptionAmericans of all backgrounds are sick and tired of the growing problem of political corruption and abuse. Every day more and more examples of the abuse of power by elected and appointed officials hit the newsstands. These problems are epidemic in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.The House Bank -- set up with bipartisan support -- was supposed to be a convenient way for busy congressmen to cash their paychecks. What it turned out to be was a scam for many congressmen -- a way to write bad checks often totalling more than a congressman's pay. If you or I did this at our local bank, we would be subject to criminal prosecution and fines in most states. Why should congressmen allow themselves to do something wrong? Should we be surprised that a group of people who cannot balance their own checkbooks cannot balance our national budget?Both parties in Congress have voted to give themselves dozens of special privileges -- everything from free airport parking to health clubs to cheap haircuts to passing laws that do not apply to them. How different is this from the way that kings, queens, and dictators make demands of their citizens while they do what they please?Both the Democrats and the Republicans vote to use our tax dollars to pay for their election campaigns and their conventions. Tens of millions of taxpayer dollars are used for this every four years. They use our money for their purposes so that they don't have to use their own. Isn't it time that members of Congress pay their own bills instead of making us pay them?Then, to make it harder to challenge their power, both parties have cooperated in enacting laws in almost every state that make it very difficult and extremely expensive for any other candidate to get on the ballot. Even billionaire Ross Perot has commented that the law in most states makes it difficult to get on the election ballot. If the business of Congress were anything other than politics, people would be calling for Congress and its members to be subject to anti-trust laws to prevent their monopoly from being abused ever again. Congress has done a good job to make sure that the laws they write to rule over others don't apply to Congress or its members!And to add insult to injury, Congress has had no problem finding the time or spending the money to give themselves a big, fat raise. Wouldn't you love it if you only had to vote "yes" to get a huge raise whenever you wanted one! If nothing else, doesn't this make it clear that members of Congress see themselves as a special, privileged class?Libertarians believe that elected officials should not hide behind special privileges that exempt them from the rules they impose on the people who elect them. Libertarians believe that elected officials do not deserve and should not have any rights or privileges that are different from those of any other citizen. We support:Elimination of special rights and privileges for elected or appointed government officials.Revision of any law or regulation that exempts the government or its officials from compliance.Ending government funding of any political party or candidate.Revision of state and federal laws to enable all candidates for elective office to be included on election ballots.from Libertarian site www.lp.org
Read the rest if you haven't already. It's powerful!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by dddd on May 29, 2001 at 02:03:53 PT
speakin of bush...
....It's a bit off topic,but I want to toss up my take on thistax cut crap,and the cruel joke of sending out checks to pay ateeny percent of the money the government stole from those whopaid taxes.........I think it's a sham to gain popularity for bush amongstthe masses...I think it compares to what car companies use to falsely bribethe simple consumer into buying a new car...I'm talking about the"$1000.00 Cash Back from Ford..."....."cash back"???what a cruelhoax,,,making it sound as if you are actually gaining something forsigning a three year payment plan .in which you get reamed with theinterest.........Another spooky aspect of the "refund" checks,is that they only goto people who paid taxes,,,leaving the federal government with ahandy list of all those who did not pay taxes....do you suppose thatwill come in handy sometime in the near future?..It's true thatthey could get this info from the IRS anytime,but now they willhave a new fresh updated list that will be more readily accessable.kinda creepy if you ask me............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by dddd on May 28, 2001 at 13:42:34 PT
votes..
Yea,,,I reminded my brother about the Gore/Scalia thing.My brotheris a history proffessor,and he teaches at a major university.I triedeverything to talk him out of Gore,but he claimed that even though Gorewas not ideal,,the Supreme Court thing was too important to let bush win.I thought Gore was going to win anyway,(which he may have),,so I votedfor Nader,,,Anyway,that SC thing rings true.The way the SC interpretsthe law is extremely significant.Perhaps this sounds too obvious,but afterseeing the behavior of the court,my brother had a good point.I must agree that Harry Brown would have been the right choice,overNader,or Gore...."dam the torpedoes"..Cheers...............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dan B on May 28, 2001 at 12:18:44 PT:
Thanks, dddd
I always appreciate a positive response, especially coming from you. By the way, when your brother insisted on voting for Gore because of Supreme Court nominees, he would have done well to recall that it was Gore who cast a deciding vote for Antonin Scalia--the absolute worst of the nine. In terms of Supreme Court nominations, I believe Bush and Gore would have been in a dead heat to see who could come up with the most dangerous people for the job.Nonetheless, we'll never know now that the Shrub has taken the country hostage. One more side note: when I voted in this last election, I voted for Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate. Realize that I live in Texas, where there was absolutely no way that Gore could have won, so my vote did not cost Gore the election. Unfortunately, my vote didn't have the desired impact, except in the county and state elections where Libertarians put up a pretty strong fight (for the Libertarian party, I believe it was the strongest showing ever), and one Libertarian (who ran unopposed) did get elected to office. Hey, it's a start.(Man, I sure do write long comments.)Thanks again, dddd.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dddd on May 28, 2001 at 00:35:53 PT
that edgeekashun payd awf
My compliments DanB,,,,that was absolutely superb.....You spoke of what the law actually says,and how it's applied,or,,,,,,,,,, interpreted!.....The "interpreted" part is the dangerous,and questionable area.,,,,That is why my little brother(Phd.),,,insisted on voting for Gore.His concern was the Supreme Court appointees,,,I now see why.I gotta also give credit to CongressmanSuet,who was more right than I was....Anyway,,,recent examples of the "interprators",of the law,and thealmost silly quagmire of laws,,,,,,that relate to other laws,,,that have laws that double the penalty,if you might have been breaking any other laws........It seems to me as if the whole thing is so fargone and murky,,that it is indeed,,quite likely beyond repair.Cheers........dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dan B on May 27, 2001 at 23:42:04 PT:
And Finally . . .
Finally, consider this little ditty from “Cannabis Hemp: The Invisible Prohibition Revealed,” By R. William Davis, 1991. (Thanks, DdC, for the excellent link).Loziers' statement raises a very important point. Historically and legally, the Marijuana Tax Act did not authorize any Federal regulation or restriction of the Cannabis Hemp industry. When Senator Prentiss M. Brown, chairman of the subcommittee, asked "what dangers, if any, does this bill have for persons engaged in the legitimate uses of the Hemp plant?" Anslinger replied "I would say that they are not only amply protected under this Act, but that they can go ahead and raise Hemp just as they have always done it." This assurance was also given by C.M. Hester, Assistant General Counsel for the Treasury Department, who testified for the record that "the production and sale of Hemp and its products for industrial purposes will not be adversely affected by this bill." (7) Brown, Anslinger and Hester knew these assurances were critical to the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Why? Because, just a few months earlier, on January 6, 1936, the Supreme Court had ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional because agriculture was "not a matter of interstate commerce and beyond the powers of Congress to regulate, even under the General Welfare clause" (United States vs Butler). (8) Clearly, the policy to create a Marijuana Prohibition based on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, and extend its provisions to restrict all cultivation of Cannabis Hemp, was outside the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government. Congress could not regulate agriculture. Alcohol Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment (18th) and, even then, applied only to the improper use of grains, etc. It did not criminalize the cultivation or possession of corn or barley. To have done so would have been not only illegal, but ridiculous. Yet another reason why use of the Commerce Clause to "justify" the prohibition of agricultural substances, like cannabis and all coca and opium products, is in fact unconstitutional.Dan B
Cannabis Hemp: The Invisible Prohibition Revealed
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on May 27, 2001 at 23:08:52 PT:
Commerce Clause, Part II
Notice, too, that generally when Congress gets involved with commerce, they are interested in one of several things:(1) With whom we will and will not, as a country, conduct commerce;(2) Standards of security and safety as they relate to commerce (such as security of personal information during commercial transactions);(3) Standards of safety for specific products, such as these bills regarding the safety of infant cribs:Infant Crib Safety Act (Introduced in the Senate)[S.538.IS]Infant Crib Safety Act (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1086.IH]While Congress has traditionally been involved with ensuring that American consumers get the safest possible quality of products from those who would conduct business in or with America, I can think of only a handful of products for which all versions of the product are illegal. All of these products are illegal drugs: LSD, cannabis, ecstacy, mescaline, psylocybin mushrooms--to name a few.It makes sense to say that sale of infant cribs that have already been deemed unsafe should be illegal because babies are unable to say "Hey Mom and Dad, I could get my head stuck in this thing," and the products are often sold to an unsuspecting public. Furthermore, the most defective products are often marketed to people in the low-income bracket, raising the potential for these products to be especially harmful for those who cannot afford safer versions of the same product.Companies that sell products with full knowledge that those products are inherently unsafe and take pains to insure that the public does not know such products are unsafe should be held to account for their actions; and Congress has the right to make laws to insure such accountability is in place. By that standard, companies that pump tons of toxic sludge into our waterways and lobby to make unsafe levels of arsenic in our drinking water "acceptable" should be held accountable. They are not.By those same standards, industries that pump thousands of dollars into the Partnership for a Drug-Free America while promoting their own even-more-toxic chemicals (tobacco and alcohol) should also be held to account for their actions. In some minor ways they have been; for example, tobacco and alcohol products are required to carry warnings that their products are harmful. But, by actively promoting laws against other substances, they are in effect asserting that their products are not as harmful as the ones they seek to keep illegal. They should be called to account for those assertions. They have not been.Of course, few who use currently-illegal drugs in this country would balk at the right of producers to place labels indicating possible harms of said drugs on containers in which the drugs are sold if it meant that they would no longer have to deal with criminals in order to obtain their drugs of choice. In other words, legalizing those drugs and holding their sale to the same standards as tobacco and/or alcohol would immediately create a safer environment in which those drugs are sold, thus reducing the criminal element associated with sales of those drugs and drawing the market for those drugs out into the open where it can be properly regulated.The irony of the use of the Commerce Clause to justify making the use, cultivation, manufacture, or distribution of certain drugs that people want to buy, want to make, want to cultivate, and want to use, is that the same clause is not being used to control actions by large corporate entities that have effects far beyond the boundaries of those making the decisions. That is, possession and use of an illegal drug may cause harm to one person--the person using the drug. Dumping of toxic chemicals into major waterways has the potential to bring harm to millions. What can we conclude from this analysis? First, we can say that Congress has the obligation to require people who sell certain products to have certain standards. Second, we can say that Congress has not applied this obligation fairly in all circumstances, choosing instead to pander to corporate interests while punishing those who would make personal choices from which corporate interests cannot profit. By the same token, we can conclude that while Congress has a duty to require protections for consumers, it does not have the right to arbitrarily decide for consumers which products they can and cannot buy. All Commerce Clause restrictions against products, outside their restrictions against illegal drugs, are aimed at the producers of those products, not at their consumers. When Congress demands a recall of, say , Firestone tires, it does not require criminal sanctions against those consumers who do not bring their vehicles in to have their tires replaced, even though such inaction could prove deadly. But it does levy criminal sanctions against those who would choose to use illegal drugs.Finally, we can conclude that Congress must be held to account for this disparity in their application of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court is clearly not willing to provide such accountability, nor is the White House. The responsibility to hold Congress accountable, then, rests squarely with the people.We have to vote against those who indulge in corporate tyranny, who support industries that deliberately poison an unwitting public, and who destroy the rights of individuals to choose what they will or will not do to their own bodies.And we must fight their laws every step of the way.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on May 27, 2001 at 20:56:10 PT:
Secession Sounds Good, But . . .
Each of the states knows a couple of things about secession. First, they know that the price for attempting to secede is major bloodshed a la the Civil War. Second, they know that if they secede, they will forfeit all federal money, and states like California get a LOT of federal money.But allow me to make a different kind of observation about this article. Consider this quotation:But those votes do not cancel out federal laws that have a constitutional basis in the Commerce Clause.Actually, a correction should be made to this statement. The federal laws that prohibit possession of marijuana or any other illegal drug do have their basis in the Commerce Clause, but it is a misapplication of that clause. Consider the exact wording of that clause:Article I. Section 8: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"Fine. So Congress has the power to regulate commerce with other countries, among the states, and with Indian tribes. Now, I want Congress to explain to me how prohibition of possession of a substance relates to commerce. In fact, it does not. Neither does cultivation of such products for one's own personal use. So, how do they justify it? To help me answer that question, here is the end of Article I. Section 8:. . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."The dubious reasoning, then, goes like this: Congress has the right to ban commerce with foreign countries, among the states, and with Indian tribes in substances it deems harmful (whether those substances are harmful or not); thus, they have the right to ban even the possession of those substances by anyone because anyone who possesses such substances might bring such substances across state lines. The laws against growing and against possession, then, are laws against what a person might do, and are thus not covered by the Constitution. The Constitution allows for Congress to make laws against what a person does do, not what a person might do. The "logic" behind the use of the Commerce Clause is largely based on the assumption that few will bothger to look up what the Commerce Clause really says. All laws against cultivation for personal use and against possession for personal use are unconstitutional. Anyone who is currently in prison/jail or on probation for growing cannabis or possessing cannabis for personal use is there on unconstitutional grounds.Why do you think that they always try to tack-on a distribution charge whenever they catch someone possessing or even cultivating an illegal substance? They know that the distribution charge has more constitutional founding than the possession charge since such actually does have something to do with "commerce." That is also why they feel justified when they increase penalties for so-called distribution.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by lookinside on May 27, 2001 at 11:46:52 PT:
personal opinion...
secession might be the best defense against a governmentbent on becoming totalitarian...if even one state were to consider it seriously, capitolhill might find the landslide of secessionist states andjurisdictions placing enemy ground between the capitol andthe white house...this isn't a geographically devided issue...the majority ofU.S. citizens are becoming uneasy about our loss ofconstitutional rights...if bushII and his 535 lawmakerscontinue to go against the constitution and bill of rights,joe citizen may choose to ignore that pile of marble on thepotomac...i hope it happens...soon...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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