No Medical Marijuana?

[R. Richard]

I find it hard to understand why sick people cannot get medication prescribed by a doctor. If doctors are behaving illegally, there are laws in place to punish that sort of activity. Comment?

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm really a big believer that some drugs should be outlawed. I also belive firmly that people who are users of those drugs ought to be locked up, for a long long time.

Primarily, I'm thinking of drugs like PCP, which can cause a normal, mild mannered 110 pound geek to become a crazed monster who feels no pain and has strength out of all proportion to his size and the irritability level of a woman's clit after 20 connected orgasms.

No independent study has ever concluded marijuanna has any harmful long term effects to rival smoking or alcohol. In fact, Pot wasn't outlawed until dupont inveneted nylon. Outlawying pot created an instant market, since most rope at the time was made of hemp.

I think the high court erred here. I think it is extending the powers of the federal government into an area that is solidly a reserve power of the states. I also think the comments on getting congress to change the laws was deliberate obfuscation. Congres shouldn't be passing legislation that curtails medicinal policy within the states.

 

[Couture]

Clearly, medical marijauna should be outlawed until at least such time as a drug company comes out with a patent for it.

 

[Liar]

Huh? Doesn't doctors already pescribe medicine that contains substances that are illegal for recreational use? For instance, there are opiates in certain medicine. What's the differnece between that and prescribing weed?

I can understand that you maybe shouldn't grow it in your back yard though, since the quality of that product can not be ensured by the doctor prescribing it.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'm still utterly stumped by the way most governments deal with marijuana. What's really going on here?

Millions of the tax-payers' money goes into sorting out the mess caused by the booze culture. It causes rowdiness, makes people take stupid risks like getting behind the wheel or having unprotected sex, it has more long-term health risks than cannabis, it can cause aggressive beaviour... I could go on and on and on.

Somehow it's ok for someone to come home after a tough day at work and have a glass of wine. But if they put their feet up and spark up a joint, then suddenly they turn into some kind of social pariah - they're breaking the law, they're going beyond the accepted boundaries of society.

Why is that the case? Although the media is doing its best to stir things up by claiming that every rapist, murderer and kidnapper smoked pot at some point in their lives, do you know of anyone who smoked a reefer then came home and beat up his wife?

If a doctor told a patient to go and have drink, nothing would be thought of it. But if a doctor has the open-mindedness to recomment a patient tries cannabis, he or she suddenly becomes the new Dr Crippen.

I've never been all that secretive about my love for weed. We all have our vices: weed is mine. And contrary to what the media and the government might have you think, I don't suffer from any psychological or psychiatric disorder, I'd never hurt a fly, I'm climbing up the career ladder nicely, I have a good family life and a wide circle of friends. I'm content and I'm happy.

I don't have an excuse for smoking marijuana; but there are plenty of people out there who have real damn good reasons. All this bullshit that drugs companies are coming out with - trying to extract the medicinal parts of the plant so that the taker doesn't get high, turning it into an expensive tablet format or creating ludicrous smoke-free contraptions...

Wouldn't it be a lot easier and cheaper if health organisations just gave out the real thing with a ganja pipe? There wouldn't even be any tobacco involved. And, God forbid, it might even make a sick person smile.

 

[Guest]

Clearly, medical marijauna should be outlawed until at least such time as a drug company comes out with a patent for it.

And the company makes significant campaign contributions.

 

[lil_elvis]

I'm really a big believer that some drugs should be outlawed. I also belive firmly that people who are users of those drugs ought to be locked up, for a long long time.

Primarily, I'm thinking of drugs like PCP, which can cause a normal, mild mannered 110 pound geek to become a crazed monster who feels no pain and has strength out of all proportion to his size and the irritability level of a woman's clit after 20 connected orgasms.

No independent study has ever concluded marijuanna has any harmful long term effects to rival smoking or alcohol. In fact, Pot wasn't outlawed until dupont inveneted nylon. Outlawying pot created an instant market, since most rope at the time was made of hemp.

I think the high court erred here. I think it is extending the powers of the federal government into an area that is solidly a reserve power of the states. I also think the comments on getting congress to change the laws was deliberate obfuscation. Congres shouldn't be passing legislation that curtails medicinal policy within the states.

Gotta go with Colly (as is most often the case). The court cited the commerse clause of the constitution to extend the Federal Authority into the case. That part of the consitution grants the ability to regulate interstate commerce solely to the Feds. The problem here is that the weed is grown in CA and sold in CA. So where's the interstate commerce?

l_e - believer in preventive medicine

 

[R. Richard]

I'm still utterly stumped by the way most governments deal with marijuana. What's really going on here?

The problem with marijuana is that it is a weed. ANYONE with a little plot of land in the lower 48 states can grow marijuana. Marijuana also grows spectacularly well in Hawaii! Thus, there is no real way for the authorities to control marijuana except by making it illegal.

I strongly supprt the medical use of anything a doctor prescribes. If the doctor is acting illegally, he/she can be prosecuted. If a patient, in the estimation of a licensed doctor needs marijuana, that should be a matter between the doctor and the patient.

In the area where I currently live, it is not all that unusual for people high on marijuana to drive long distances using the public roads. Anyone who drives the public roads high on marijuana, drunk on alcohol or stoned on any number of substances should, IMNTHO, be put in prison for a long time.

I do not believe that a person using marijuana in their own home is any problem for the law. HOWEVER, if that person leaves his/her home and drives, that is a problem for the law.

One other problem is one that I encountered on a ski bus. There were people in the back of the bus smoking marijuana and the tour director had to stop the bus and physically stop the marijuana smokers. There is something called a contact high that could affect the bus driver simply because he was in the same bus with the marijuana smokers. The marijuana smokers were about to start a revolution because they could not smoke marijuana when the wanted to. I managed to reason with them. However, the problem was very real and the marijuana users were unconcerned with the welfare of others on the bus. I do not know if this is all that typical, but it is the type of irresponsible use that allows the authorites to ban things.

 

[cinnamonstick]

It is all about the drug companies. Marijuana works better than most prescription drugs at increasing appetite and reducing nausea. The drugs ccompanies do not want to lose any money. They do not care if people are helped. That doesn't increase the bottom line.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It is all about the drug companies. Marijuana works better than most prescription drugs at increasing appetite and reducing nausea. The drugs ccompanies do not want to lose any money. They do not care if people are helped. That doesn't increase the bottom line.

Not just the medical companies but also those who make booze and wine. Like them, MJ is a recreational drug and if it were legal, it would cut into their sales even more than it does now. It's also less addictive, safer and better in just about every way.

 

[carsonshepherd]

there are limits on how much morphine a cancer patient can have, also. Even a terminal one who's in so much pain that nothing else helps. But it doesn't matter - once they've reached the limits, they have to suffer... becuase they might get addicted, never mind the fact they are in the last stages of terminal cancer.

In light of this, it doesn't really surprise me that prescribing medical marijuana has been criminalized despite its benefits... but I won't start a rant about death and dying issues.

It is all about the drug companies. Marijuana works better than most prescription drugs at increasing appetite and reducing nausea. The drugs ccompanies do not want to lose any money. They do not care if people are helped. That doesn't increase the bottom line.

I think this is true... but there are still ways to get it, and people will. They always have.

I will add that when my father was dying from cancer the only thing that brought him any relief was marijuana, at least, before the morphine stopped working.

 

[maggot420]

In 1985 the average smoker in the United States smoked 26 cigarettes per day. In 1885 the average smoker in the United States smoked 24 cigarettes per year.

If marijuana was legalized even for medicinal purposes where would the supply come from? I find it hard to imagine pharmacists down at the pool hall trying to make a score. Would the government get in the business of growing? I really hope not because they are sure to fuck it up. I would rather be a criminal and smoke my own homegrown than have to rely on the government to ease my pain. I hope it stays illegal and if you really need it because you have aids, cancer or glaucoma just let me know...I know a guy

 

[R. Richard]

If marijuana was legalized even for medicinal purposes where would the supply come from?

Marijuana is a WEED! All it requires is sunlight and a little water. If it were legal to grow marijuana, the supply could increase exponentially in a very short period of time. This is not theory, I knew a gentleman [his claim, not mine] in Mexico who was getting three crops a year out of desert land. [As a law abiding citizen I would have reported him, but I forgot the address. However, it was somewhere in Mexico!]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Clearly, medical marijauna should be outlawed until at least such time as a drug company comes out with a patent for it.

Actually, the Pharmacutical companies have come out with a drug to combat nausea from Chemotherapy. It....it um...well, if you must know, it's the same chemical you find in marijuanna, but it costs a lot more than a dime bag.

 

[BigAndTall]

I think the high court erred here. I think it is extending the powers of the federal government into an area that is solidly a reserve power of the states. I also think the comments on getting congress to change the laws was deliberate obfuscation. Congres shouldn't be passing legislation that curtails medicinal policy within the states.

I don't think the court erred, I think Congress erred. We can't say that we want the USSC picking which laws are Constituionally legal are not based on public policy. That is suppose to be Congresses job. In that regard I support the court.

However, I think the US Congress should leave states alone on matters like this.

One point. This did not criminalize medical weed. It allows Federal agencies to enforce federal laws. It does not remove the state laws that allow the use of weed. How that pans out will be intersting, cause state agencies where it is "legal" are not going to go out to enforce a federal law.

....or will they?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't think the court erred, I think Congress erred. We can't say that we want the USSC picking which laws are Constituionally legal are not based on public policy. That is suppose to be Congresses job. In that regard I support the court.

However, I think the US Congress should leave states alone on matters like this.

One point. This did not criminalize medical weed. It allows Federal agencies to enforce federal laws. It does not remove the state laws that allow the use of weed. How that pans out will be intersting, cause state agencies where it is "legal" are not going to go out to enforce a federal law.

....or will they?

I expect the high court to curtail a congress that's stepping all over the reserve powers of the states. I think the Fed is in this case.

 

[JPaul2]

Actually, the Pharmacutical companies have come out with a drug to combat nausea from Chemotherapy. It....it um...well, if you must know, it's the same chemical you find in marijuanna, but it costs a lot more than a dime bag.

A dime bag!!! Where the Hell do you find dime bags?

 

[Boxlicker101]

A dime bag!!! Where the Hell do you find dime bags?

I haven't used it for a long time but when I did, the usual volume for individual sales was called a lid. This was about one ounce in a baggie.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I haven't used it for a long time but when I did, the usual volume for individual sales was called a lid. This was about one ounce in a baggie.

In my neighborhood, they sell quarters and eighths. @$50 for an eighth, but that varies based on quality.

 

[carsonshepherd]

In my neighborhood, they sell quarters and eighths. @$50 for an eighth, but that varies based on quality.

or so you hear...

 

[LadyJeanne]

or so you hear...

Every time I walk past Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park.

 

[Guest]

.
.
.
One point. This did not criminalize medical weed. It allows Federal agencies to enforce federal laws. It does not remove the state laws that allow the use of weed. How that pans out will be intersting, cause state agencies where it is "legal" are not going to go out to enforce a federal law.

....or will they?

________


I think that's the crux of the matter. Congress can take this ball and run with and make federal law, if they decide to (but unlikely in the current political climate), and permit physicians to prescribe marijuana for medicinal use. It appears to have overwhelming support in the US from the from the polls I've seen.

It was also an interesting dynamic on the Court—wasn't it?—the alignment of strange bedfellows, Renquist, O'Conner, and Thomas with the proponents for marijuana's medicinal use (certainly not because of a general welfare argument, but as a states' rights issue).

Beyond this test, though, I wonder if there really is a practical concern that the Feds will get more involved prosecuting these kinds of cases.

"Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. 'This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients,' he said." — The Associated Press, Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET June 6, 2005


We’ll see . . .