Supreme Court says "No" to Medical Marijuana

[Bradylama]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana 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 that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana 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 other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating 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 was 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 seriously ill California women, 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, California, has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

I guess that the majority decision does have a point in that the states shouldn't be able to defy Federal legislation.

In any case, however, this is just further evidence of the need for Controlled Substances reform. I mean, really, these people have horrible, life-debilitating diseases, and we're trying to make it harder or impossible for them to grow the medicine they need, that they could grow in their own backyard for free?

Fuck that, seriously. I don't see how any anti-drug watchdog could insist that these people's lives should be made more painful because of their personal vendetta against the Demon Weed.

 

[Tempistfury]

IMO, its not the Gov't's place to interere with my medicine. If the doctor says that i need pot to get better, then im going to take my pot. If he says i need something else, i'll take it. The govt shouldnt beable to say "no you're not allowed access to X treatment even if you can pay for it"

 

[MSD]

IMHO for such people gov should give these drugs
for free(they really need it), but growing such drugs in your backyard should be prohibited

 

[SimpleMinded]

I agree with ya MSD. Once you allow people to grow their own Marijuana, it becomes pretty difficult to separate the medical motives from the pleasure. In addition, it makes it significantly harder to regulate if you allow the random sick feller to grow the drugs. While yes, he'll be using it for medical purposes, who knows what'll happen if he happens to "accidentally" grow extra.

So while yes, the government shouldn't prevent patients who medically need marijuana from getting it, allowing them to grow it seems a little too over the top.

 

[welsh]

True, and think of all the over-the-counter drugs that get sold illegally.

That said, a doctor prescribes medication and it has to be grown, so technically we are talking commerce, and commerce is under the Congress's power.

But this also seems more like a local issue and an issue of social values.

 

[Silencer]

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

...so that the folks in question can get high and forget how horribly screwed they are? Damn, I think I'm getting chronically sick...

Seriously, though, I support MSD and SimpleMinded; If someone is going to grow extra, then it's likely that extra finds itself in underground trafficking, and if it does, it may as well elave the state.
And if it leaves the state, then the government is right to prohibit it, beacuse I can't imagine effectively controlling and regulating the matter (that is to say, people growing MJ in their yards)

 

[Bradylama]

Yeah, because all of your underground drug syndicates get their pot from certified growers.

Nigga please.

I mean, liquor store owners could sell liquor to children, but we still have wet counties. I find it seriously hard to believe that people who are more than likely on a government list are in danger of excacerbating the "drug problem."

 

[Silencer]

Yeah, because all of your underground drug syndicates get their pot from certified growers.

Not all. But certainly some would, at least a portion.

Oh. We're talking certified growers? I was under the impression we're talking every Tom, Dick and Harry and their greenhouses which would be too copious for the government officials to numerate, let alone control. It's just damn easier to control it, if the production and distribution is state-owned.

Not totally, though, but quite easier.

I mean, liquor store owners could sell liquor to children, but we still have wet counties.

Yeah. However, if there were no liquor stores, there'd be no one to sell to children, that's the logic behind my reasoning.* Same goes for growing pot, if there are no private cultivations, there's no pot that could be spirited away from them.

Then again, I doubt anyone is going to ban liquor stroes to protect the children, but I guess it's because liqor has got a longer and better estabilished history or legal recreational use than marijuana.

*of course, there's probably be a black market, but this is not the issue here, as no degree of control over official cultivations and liquor stores will eliminate the black market.

 

[Bradylama]

Not all. But certainly some would, at least a portion.

Why? Why risk yourself, propositioning a law abiding citizen to grow some marijuana for you on the side, when you can simply grow it yourself?

Dealers already have a stranglehold on the market because they're the only providers. It doesn't matter how much pot they grow or can provide, they're still in a position to determine the price how they see fit because they lack local competition, and aren't subject to market regulations. How can they be? Their practice is illegal.

*of course, there's probably be a black market, but this is not the issue here, as no degree of control over official cultivations and liquor stores will eliminate the black market.

So what is the issue, then? If the black market isn't the issue, then why not let sick people grow their own marijuana?

The only reason that all of the arguments come back to is a personal vendetta against marijuana.

Not totally, though, but quite easier.

But what's the point?

 

[Silencer]

Why? Why risk yourself, propositioning a law abiding citizen to grow some marijuana for you on the side, when you can simply grow it yourself?

If you've got a doctor's recommendation. Although I doubt it'd be very hard to get for anyone, doctors have to eat too.

Also, imagine: How much can you grow without drawing attention? But proposition to one upright citizen, two, a dozen... see my point?

Dealers already have a stranglehold on the market because they're the only providers. It doesn't matter how much pot they grow or can provide, they're still in a position to determine the price how they see fit because they lack local competition, and aren't subject to market regulations. How can they? Their practice is illegal.

Hm, I may see your point, but flooding the market with enough "legal" pot to weaken their "market position" and put them out of business would probably create issues - and surely it goes beyond the scope of medical use of MJ.

Unfortunately, the answer here is not to create competition, especially since the market is so voracious.

So what is the issue, then? If the black market isn't the issue

No, you missed my point. It is an issue - it's just that I'm not naive enough to believe that prohibiting "sick people" from growing weed wil deal a substantial blow to it.

Letting them, on the other hand, would bolster it for sure.

The only reason that all of the arguments come back to is a personal vendetta against marijuana.

Now where did I say that? STFU before i moderate you for getting ..."personal" (j/k)

Joking aside, I don't have a personal vendetta against weed yet, although I see how it can be harmful and I'd rather not see more of it drifting around than it has to, just like I'd rather not see 13-year-olds drinking wine.

But what's the point?

The point is it's always harder to enforce restrictions on a privately owned enterprise than a state-owned enterprise; And even by allowing your sick to grow MJ, you're not ready to lift all the restrictions, are you?

(Poles: I think distilling your own booze should be legal, who's with me?)

 

[Bradylama]

If you've got a doctor's recommendation. Although I doubt it'd be very hard to get for anyone, doctors have to eat too.

Well shit, we can't trust doctors now? It's not like they're prescribing marijuana for colds, these are people with life-debilitating diseases. And how are they going to be making money prescribing a medication for a free substance?

Also, imagine: How much can you grow without drawing attention? But proposition to one upright citizen, two, a dozen... see my point?

How would they even know who these people are? And wouldn't you be afraid that people able to grow marijuana would be monitored periodically? How much risk are you willing to take?

Hm, I may see your point, but flooding the market with enough "legal" pot to weaken their "market position" and put them out of business would probably create issues - and surely it goes beyond the scope of medical use of MJ.

Unfortunately, the answer here is not to create competition, especially since the market is so voracious.

It's not like they're creating competition. Selling marijuana is still illegal, you see. People get all of their drugs usually through one dealer that they trust. When you've got a loyal customer base, you can pretty much charge whatever the Hell you like. If somebody (Grannie May) encroaches on their business, they'll take out the competition through violent means. They're already operating outside the bounds of the law, you think they're going to play nice?

Letting them, on the other hand, would bolster it for sure.

On what grounds? The good it would do to the drug community would be a minimal contribution to an already minimal problem. Christ, though, we can't trust adults to administer their medication responsibly. That's why we only let them take it where they can be observed, right? Right? Right?

Joking aside, I don't have a personal vendetta against weed yet, although I see how it can be harmful and I'd rather not see more of it drifting around than it has to, just like I'd rather not see 13-year-olds drinking wine.

Then it is a personal problem that you're arguing on. You're essentially saying that we should make it harder for people to get the medicine they need to live, because you don't like marijuana.

The point is it's always harder to enforce restrictions on a privately owned enterprise than a state-owned enterprise;

Enterprise? This isn't a business, these are people growing medicine in greenhouses. It's as much an enterprise as your grandma growing a vegetable garden.

And even by allowing your sick to grow MJ, you're not ready to lift all the restrictions, are you?

I am, but that's besides the point.

 

[Silencer]

Well shit, we can't trust doctors now?

Of coure we can't. Did I ever tell you about the ambulance from Lodz?

Still, they're quite a bit better than *gulp* lawyers.

It's not like they're prescribing marijuana for colds, these are people with life-debilitating diseases. And how are they going to be making money prescribing a medication for a free substance?

Uhm... bribes?

Believe me, there are a lot of perfectly healthy people out there who'd like to have a perming for growing MJ

And wouldn't you be afraid that people able to grow marijuana would be monitored periodically? How much risk are you willing to take?

How many monitors are you willing to employ? For your tax money?

When you've got a loyal customer base, you can pretty much charge whatever the Hell you like.

I hope you're specifically meaning the drug black market, as it would contradict what limited knowledge I have of any other market.

They're already operating outside the bounds of the law, you think they're going to play nice?

Does this have anything to do with the issue? I'm not talking about what's already ouside the law, I'm talking about what should be and how could it trickle from the legal traffic into the gray zone.

The good it would do to the drug community would be a minimal contribution to an already minimal problem.

Drug abuse is a minimal problem in the US? Lucky you

Then it is a personal problem that you're arguing on. You're essentially saying that we should make it harder for people to get the medicine they need to live, because you don't like marijuana.

Wow. So now you need marijuana to live? Then how come I get by without it?

Joking aside, I'm not saying <s>we</s> you should make it harder, I'm saying <s>we</s> you should have it controlled.

I couldn't care less about what transpiers in California's druga market, but it is important you get my message right

I also not like pork, but I'm not going to avocate restricting the production and distribution of pork.

But yes, I'd hate to see my tax money spent on addiction clinics and detox, only because the amount of drugs on the market skyrocketed and everyone wants to try it, whatever the cause might be.

It's as much an enterprise as your grandma growing a vegetable garden.

Everything's an enterprise, in a way. Besides, I was making an observation as to who controls it.

I am, but that's besides the point.

Who's making a personal issue now?

Meh, that's why I don't get into political debates, usually... need to get sleep.....

 

[Bradylama]

Uhm... bribes? Rolling Eyes

This isn't fucking Poland we're talking about here. A doctor can't diagnose you with something like Thyroid cancer from a checkup.

I hope you're specifically meaning the drug black market, as it would contradict what limited knowledge I have of any other market.

Yes, that would be what I am talking about. Context? What is that?

How many monitors are you willing to employ? For your tax money?

None. But there are people like you that insist on making it difficult for others, so I'd rather take the tax hit monitoring sickies than have state-controlled distribution.

Does this have anything to do with the issue? I'm not talking about what's already ouside the law, I'm talking about what should be and how could it trickle from the legal traffic into the gray zone.

I've already pretty much just illustrated how rediculous that is. If marijuana is getting from the hands of law abiding citizens to the crime-inals, criminals, then they wouldn't be abiding the law, would they?

Of course, the alternative is that people would be stealing the pot. However, why would they need to acquire more of a substance they have an unlimited price window for?

Joking aside, I'm not saying we you should make it harder, I'm saying we you should have it controlled.

By controlling substance distribution you're already making it inherently harder for people to acquire it.

But yes, I'd hate to see my tax money spent on addiction clinics and detox, only because the amount of drugs on the market skyrocketed and everyone wants to try it, whatever the cause might be.

Inventory is not an issue. Drug dealers only need enough drugs to satisfy their current customer base, and to provide a hook for prospective buyers. It's not like demand is going to skyrocket because all of a sudden there's more pot being grown somewhere.

 

[tEd]

Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to just allow people to grow their own marijuana? If there is no demand, there will be no weed dealers (I'm not talking about other drugs here, just herb). It would be pointless for anyone to grow mass amounts of MJ (unless you're setting up a personal stash) since no one would pay for it.

Using and growing marijuana in the privacy of your home shouldn't be illegal IMO. Personally, I grow my own MJ, so that I do not have to spend my bucks on black market products. At least I know I'm consuming something healthy, and I'm not paying for it.

 

[MSD]

Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to just allow people to grow their own marijuana? If there is no demand, there will be no weed dealers (I'm not talking about other drugs here, just herb).

Nope. Its like saying "lets legalise killing, these pricks will shoot themselves and there will be no more mass murderers"

you just can't fight black market dealers by making mj legal, cause then a lot of people will smoke mj and will say like " oh well mj is not a drug - its legal and not harmful, but LSD is a drug,yeah , its illegal , but its cooler then mj, so still gonna test it some day" - so thats the best adv for drug dealers-)

 

[Silencer]

This isn't fucking Poland we're talking about here. A doctor can't diagnose you with something like Thyroid cancer from a checkup.

I'm sure all of your physicians out there are saints. What a joyous country!

Drug dealers only need enough drugs to satisfy their current customer base, and to provide a hook for prospective buyers.

Translation: "Ever more and fucking more".

It's not like demand is going to skyrocket because all of a sudden there's more pot being grown somewhere.

Come back and we'll talk after you've learned some basic economics, especially the issues of price, supply and demand relationships.

 

[Bradylama]

Come back and we'll talk after you've learned some basic economics, especially the issues of price, supply and demand relationships.

Demand isn't generated by the availability of a product, it's generated by individual want. It's not like Dealers can launch ad campaigns and BLOW OUT PRICES (tell a friend). If people wanted to try marijuana there's not a whole lot stopping them, other than connections. Why do you think dealers give free samples? Once they've got you hooked, they've got you, and they can charge any exhorbitant amount they want because they have no competition.

That is why inventory isn't an issue. It's a simple process to grow or receive enough drugs to satisfy your customers, and so long as you have enough for them, you can charge whatever the fuck you want.

Keep in mind the context of the situation. We are not talking about a capitalist, regulation-controlled market, this is the Black Market. Anything goes.

I'm sure all of your physicians out there are saints. What a joyous country!

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's harder than you think. Our doctors actually get payed, you see. You'd have to have some deep pocket change to bribe your way to a prescription, and chances are if you already have that kind of cash, you're getting drugs grown from outside the country.

 

[WaterGirl]

One of the biggest problems with legalizing marijuana, whether for medical or recreational use, is that it's a Class I controlled substance. Controlled substances are those that have an abuse potential. There are five different Classes, with Class I being the most restricted, with the highest abuse potential and no medical use.

In order to make marijuana legal, they would have to move it from a Class I to a Class II, which they don't want to do. Ironically, cocaine is a Class II controlled substance. I guess it's used as an anesthetic in the eyes, nose and throat, because it provides the anesthesia and prevents bleeding.

Controlled Substance Schedule

 

[PhoenixRising]

we should march on Washington to legalize Marijuana.

Here's our Slogan

"Marijuana: Hey, at least it's not Jet!"

 

[Josan]

Medical marijuana is allowed in Canada. Funny thing was (think it was about a year, year and a half ago) that the people receiving the weed from the government's grow house complained that it was the worst weed ever, chopped up stalks and all. They actually asked for a refund saying they could get better weed on the street from a stranger.