Marijuana Plaintiff To Defy Court Ruling

  Marijuana Plaintiff To Defy Court Ruling

Posted by CN Staff on June 06, 2005 at 10:41:24 PT
By David Kravets, Associated Press Writer 
Source: Associated Press  

San Francisco, Calif. -- One of the lead plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday says she'll defy the ruling and continue to smoke pot."I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997, after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is battling degenerative spine disease."I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said.Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other plaintiff, to close.Raich suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems.Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other states, but have taken measures - such as not keeping client lists - to protect their customers from arrest.The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations and their clients' pot supplies.Raich and Monson sued Attorney General John Ashcroft because they feared their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up.Source: Associated Press (Wire)Author: David Kravets, Associated Press WriterPublished: June 6, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft News Marijuana Effort Loses at US High Court Can Bar Medical Marijuana Use Medical Marijuana Laws Remain Valid

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #24 posted by Patrick on June 06, 2005 at 22:24:13 PT
Comment #11 posted by dongenero
Well said dongeneroThis Supreme Court decision has made it very obvious to an entire nation of the uncompassionate nature of our federal law that allows the government to over step its bounds and…”arrest and incarcerate them, destroy their familes, careers, finances and finally allow them to perish for lack of what helps make their lives livable.This decision may just be a blessing in disguise because it creates a line dividing question that every politician will have to face going forward.Do you support a law that arrests people for finding relief by using cannabis as a medicine? If they say yes then 93% of the voters will turn thumbs down and they will not get elected or re-elected. It seems clear to me now that all the Supremes did was to interpret the current laws and confirm that yes the “law” allows the feds to do this. And We The People disagree overwhelmingly with them having that power. No politician in his or her right mind will support arresting adult medical marijuana patients going forward. Or so I hope so. I sense the winds of change are in our favor.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by runderwo on June 06, 2005 at 21:32:57 PT
No, that was just the response I predicted (I didn't enclose it in quotes for that reason).
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by ekim on June 06, 2005 at 21:28:17 PT
good luck jose
-----we have over number 9 the number used to change Alcohol Prohibition; now the med states there are 10 and DC and RI soon.
- how can those elected go against the 10 and DC -- the states right act has what 30 co-sponsors -that's not the correct number when 11 and DC are counted. how much percent is 11 out of 51 how many lawmakers should those numbers truly represent. ask Mica that, ask him to be one of those lawmakers that represents the 80% of the people here in the USA show em the Lou Dobbs poll of over 90% and the MSNBC poll of over 80% that responded in just one night. ask if the lawmaker will vote for a poll taken in FL on the states right act and will he vote accordingly.When the only thing standing in the way of repeal was the election of FDR, thousnads of "wets" and hundreds of "wet" organizations moved unambiguously behind the Democrat. The message was clear: Roosevelt meant repeal, and repeal meant Roosevelt.People wanted both, and Roosevelt triumphed in the election. The Number of "wets" in Congress grew significantly. In the nine states, voters passed referenda repealing the state prohibition laws.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by The GCW on June 06, 2005 at 21:13:59 PT
Vote here Should the federal government prosecute medical marijuana users, now that it has been given the OK by the Supreme Court? * 69575 responses Yes 
10% No 
88% I'm not sure 
2%&&&&LOU DOBBS TONIGHT QUICKVOTE Do you believe the federal government should prosecute doctors who prescribe medical marijuana? Current Results: Yes -- 7% No -- 93% Total: 3264 votes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by Hope on June 06, 2005 at 19:38:31 PT
You'll do well, Jose. You'll do well.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 19:30:49 PT
" . . . violate the basic principles of our law and government and encroach upon the powers properly reserved to the States and the people."Gosh that sonds familiar . . . thanks Hope! You've made my day three times in two days!Now I think I'll bring a disc instead of paper . . . 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Hope on June 06, 2005 at 18:26:20 PT
How Alcohol Prohibition Was Ended
How Alcohol Prohibition Was Ended
by Richard M. EvansYou saved the very foundation of our Government. No man can tell where we would have gone, or to what we would have fallen, had not this repeal been brought about.
-Letter to the VCL, 1933This is a story about a small, remarkable group of lawyers who took it upon themselves, as a self- appointed committee, to propel a revolution in a drug policy: the repeal of the 18th Amendment.In 1927, nine prominent New York lawyers associated themselves under the intentionally-bland name, "Voluntary Committee of Lawyers," declaring as their purpose " to preserve the spirit of the Constitution of the United States [by] bring[ing] about the repeal of the so-called Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Ammendment." With the modest platform they thus commanded, reinforced by their significant stature in the legal community, they undertook first to draft and promote repeal resolutions for local and state bar asssociations. Their success culminated with the American Bar Association calling for repeal in 1928, after scores of city and state bar associations in all regions of the country had spoken unambiguously, in words and ideas cultivated, shaped, and sharpened by the VCL.As it turned out, this successwas but prelude to their stunnung achievement several years later. Due in large to the VCL"s extraordinary work, the 18tg Amendment was, in less than a year, surgically struck from the Constitution. Repeal was a reality. The patient was well. People could drink.Here is how it happened.Climaxing decades of gathering hostility towards salloons and moral outrage over the general degeneracy said to be flowing from bottles and kegs, the Cocstitution of the United States had been amended, effective 1920, to progibit the manufacture and sale of "intoxicating liquors." the Volstead Act, the federal statute implementing the prohibitionamindmint, progibited commerce in beer as well.At first prohibition was popular among those who had suppored it, and tolerated by the others. But before long, unmistakable grumbling was heard in the cities. To meet the uninterrupted demand for alcohol, there sprang up bathtub ginworks and basement stills, tight and discrete illegal supply networks, and speakeasies: secret, illegal bars remembered chiefly today as where, for the first time, women were seen smoking in public.Commerse in alcohol plunged underground, and soon fell under the control of thugs and gangsters, whose organizations often acquired their merchandise legally in Canada. Violence aften settled commercial differences- necessarily, it might be said, as suppliers and distributors were denied the services of lawyers, insurance companies, and the civil courts. On the local level, widesspread disobedience of the progibition laws by otherwise law-abiding citizens produced numerous arrests. Courts were badly clogged, in large part because nearly all defendents demanded jury trials, confident that a jury of their peers was likely to view their plight sympathetically.With the growth of well-organized and serious national anti-Prohibition groups like Americans Against the Prohibition Amendment and the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, popular support for repeal grew geometrically during the thirteen years of Prohibition. In th midst of the 1932 presidential election campaign, it erupted.It was summer. Millions were broken from economic depression, beleaguered by crime and corruption, and thirsty.As expected, the Republicans nominated the incumbent President, Herbert Hoover, who was pledged to support Prohibition. The VCL made a stalwart effort to gain a repeal plank in the platform, taking the debate as far as the convention floor, where they were turned away by a preponderance of delegates.The sitution was much different with the Democrats. Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, who led in the delegate count, had carefully avoided taking a position on repeal. At the convention, a successful floor fight produced a pro-repeal plank- drafted and defended by the VCL- in the Democratic platform, which FDR unambiguously endorsed in his acceptance speech. "Tjis convention wants repeal," he declared. "Your candidate wants repeal."During the election campaign, FDR made one unequivocal speech endorsing repeal. Otherwise, both candidates successfully aboided the issue, despite- or perhaps because of- their having takin opposite positions. "Politics is the art of changing the subject," observed Walter Mondale many years later.When the only thing standing in the way of repeal was the election of FDR, thousnads of "wets" and hundreds of "wet" organizations moved unambiguously behind the Democrat. The message was clear: Roosevelt meant repeal, and repeal meant Roosevelt.People wanted both, and Roosevelt triumphed in the election. The Number of "wets" in Congress grew significantly. In the nine states, voters passed referenda repealing the state prohibition laws.This is when th VCL stepped forward and took on the remarkable leadership and responsibility for which they were so uniquelyequipped. It required no particular insight into the nature of democracy to know that when the weight of public opinion demanded repeal of Prohibition, Prohibition would be repealed. The question was how. Certainly, lest the repeal process- like any important undertaking- become mired in political and legal entanglements, a thorough and solid legal plan was essential.For years, repeal advocates had urged that the repeal question should be resolved by conventions in the states, which is one of two methods prescribed in the Constitution for ratifying amendments. Problem was, this method had never been used. Always, the matter of amending the Constitution had been (and to this day has been) decided by state legislatures. But to "wets," that was out of the question, as state legislatures were notoriousy "dry," being dominated by rural, fundamentalist interests, passionate in their defense of progibition. (The "one man, one vote" rule would not become law for another thirty-one years.) The repeal resolution had to bypass state legislatures and go th popularly- elected conventions, if it were to succeed.But by whom were such conventions to be called? How were delegated to be chosen? When and where were they to convene? Who would preside? By what rules should the convention conduct itself? What rights and priveleges would delegates have? How were conflicts between state and federal law to be resolved?Heavy questions, these and neither Congress nor any state had spoken on the subject. Enter the VCL.Conferring with eminent Constitutional scholars, conducting exhaustive legal and historical research, feverishly circulating drafts of statutes, memoranda, briefs, summaries, etc.- the working drawings of legal change- the VCL quickly produced a prototype state statute, which dealt with all of the organizational problims involved in setting up Constitutional camventions in the states. It was as invulnerable to legal challenge as the best legal- minds could make it. Called "truly representative," the conventions were carefully set up to mirror exactly the priferences of voters. This was accomplished by voters electing delegates pledged for or against repeal, and apportioning delegates based for or against vote. Thus the convention process became essentially a two- step referendum: voters would speak, and delegates would vote accordingly. In no way were the conventions to be deliberative bodies. The pretense of debvate was not to stand in the way of repeal.Copies of the draft bills were sent to every governor and legislative leader in all the states. Utilizing their impressive network of affiliate- members throughout the forty-eight states, as well as their expuisite and plucky legal skills, the VCL provided expert witnesses for legislative hearings, submitted thorough legal briefs, defended legalchallenges, answered Constitutional questions- in short, enable states to prepare for the day that Congress would pass a repeal resolution and send it to the states for ratification.Congress finally loosened the steamroller on February 20, 1933, an by December 5, in thirty-six states (the necessary three-fourths) legislation setting up conventions had been enacted, the conventions had been called, delegates had been elected and convened, and repeal resolution had passed! the final rollcall vote, in Utah, was eagerly monitored by millions over a national radio broadcast.Nearly all the states that ratified the repeal resolution relied heavily on the prototype statute promulgated by the VCL. Many enacted it verbatim, others borrowed from it heavily.Several hours after Utah ratified the 21st Amendment, while millions of Americans were celebrating, the VCL treasurer quietly balanced the books by making a final contribution from his own pocket in the amount of $6.66, and closed them permanently. Who were they?At its peak, the VCL claimed around 3,500 "affiliate" lawyers in all states among its members. The organization was managed, however, by tight coterie of nine impeccably established "white shoe" lawyers.For the entire term of its existence, the VCL was chaired by Joseph H. Choate, Jr., son of Theodore Roosevelt's ambassador to England, and an eminent Park Avenue lawyer. The organization's treasurer was Harrison Tweed, another Harvard/Harvard man, one of the country's most successful lawyers, and a prime mover in many important civic causes.Choate and Tweed and seven others, similarily pedigreed, called themselves the Executive Committee, and prudently managed the affaurs of the organization. They were elite, but by no means elitist. They solicited affiliates in every state and participation by as many lawyers as possible, using ads placed in lawyers' magazines. very inquiry brought a thoughtful and deliberate response, as well as an appeal for financial support.The executive committee hired an Executive Secretary, Mrs. H.P. Rhoudy, who ran the national office, and visited many state capitals, inlisting local lawyers and political figures in the cause. Her dispatches back to New York ring of diplomacy at its best.What motivated these men? Their formal corporate charter, adopted in 1927, declared their grievances:The Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act violate the basic principles of our law and government and encroach upon the powers properly reserved to the States and the people.The attempt to enforce them has been productive of such evils and abuses as are necessarily incident to violation of those principles, insluding disrespect for laws; obstruction of the due administration of justice; corruption of public officials; abuse of legal process; resort by the Government to improper and illegal acts int procurement of evidence; infringement of such constitutional guarantees as immunity from double jeopardy and illegal search and seizure.Surely, the VCL executive committee were men of sociey where Prohibition was decidely unpopular, but their declared objective was to exise from the Constitution a vexatious and festering sore. When they achieved that objective, they disbanded.What are the lessons of their success? Certainly, timing, preparation, and the creed of any good lobbyist: that one doesn't have to be a politician to make policy.A more foreboding lesson is that the United States Constitution, upon which we ultimately rely for the preservation of our form of government and our sacred individual liberties, is highly vulnerable to the force public opinion. If the 18th Amendment can be repealed in a mere 288 days, cannot the First, or the Fifth? As the VCL prototype stature was not specific to repeal, the mechanism they helped put in place likely remains on the book in all states that enacted it.Leaders of the VCL were railroad lawyers. What railroads paid them handsomely for, they did for the public gratis. They saw a train coming, and hurriedly secured all the rights and easements necessary if it were to reach its destination, avoiding a morass of debilitating lawsuits and other legal complications. Had they not made this vital contribution, ratification may well have failed.Richard M. Evans is an attorney with offices at 56 Main St., Northampton, Mass. 01060.End
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 17:47:51 PT
objection: asked and answered
Did Walters really say that? Here's the answer to such disinformation, in case any journalists want to break the blackout:from: The false claim that getting tough on marijuana helps children is easily disputed. While heroin arrests and court referrals for treatment dropped precipitously, heroin use by eighth graders spiked along with arrests and so-called treatment mandated to marijuana users in lieu of jail.* Also, Barthwell, Rathbone and their cronies all carefully avoid mentioning that vaporizers and cooked marijuana completely eliminate tars and resins believed to cause health problems in smokers. Of course, fanatical zealots have long made it their business to lie in an effort to collect often tax-free government, corporate and private money for or in support of marijuana drug testing: see: False Claims Act provides for civil penalties against “any person” who “knowingly presents… to an officer or employee of the United States government… a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” 31 USC §3729 (a) (1). If the claim succeeds, the defendant is liable to the government for a civil penalty of $5,000 to $10,000 for each violation, treble damages and costs. see also: Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients' nausea from chemotherapy, help treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients' appetite and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers. Walters, the drug czar, said those contentions are unproven. ``To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective,'' he said. from: