Hear about the prescribed weed crackdown?

[Dove]

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2005/06/07/149946.html

Government officials can prosecute people for weed usage even if it was prescribed to them by doctors. Even in cities where mary j is legal, people can STILL get arrested even if they had doctor recommendation. sheesh... :(

Wow, the bush administration sure is cracking down on it............didn't bush do a ton of drugs in his day?

[delta9]

Not cities, states.

Supreme Court Outlaws Medical Marijuana
Court OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions
June 6, 2005 - CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."

Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain from multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics.

"It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001, Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue this election year.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

[delta9]

Californians appear ready to defy marijuana ruling
June 6, 2005 - Modesto Bee (http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/10631402p-11417792c.html)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - 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, a move likely to be followed by many Californians.

"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 sick 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 popular medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value.

Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997, after standard prescription drugs made her sleepy or were simply not effective.

"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.

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.

[delta9]

Join Angel Raich for a Live Web Chat on the Decision
June 6, 2005 - Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/060605raichchat.cfm)

Angel Raich, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and several other illnesses, uses medical marijuana to help ease her pain. Last November, she took her case against Attorney General Ashcroft, which would allow patients to cultivate and use medical marijuana upon the recommendation of a doctor, to the Supreme Court. Angel Raich and her husband, Robert Raich will be online to discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling on Raich vs. Ashcroft with Executive Director of the Alliance, Ethan Nadelmann.

When: Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at
5 PM EDT / 2 PM PDT
Where: Online at Drugpolicy.org (http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/ctt.asp?u=3761722&l=95491)

Submit questions to questions@drugpolicy.org before June 8, 2005

[delta9]

(news items and presentation courtesy of veggie (http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showprofile.php?Cat=0&User=128982&Number=4263272&Board=News&what=showflat&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1), tireless Shroomery News Service (http://www.shroomery.org/forums/postlist.php/Board/News) data-gatherer)

[unclejoe]

quietly grown in small batches in your vegetable garden, keep them small, perhaps between the tomato plants.

[delta9]

Heehee, you've got so many clever answers, Pedata :D

[delta9]

I'll take a shot at it. Politics is not my forte, however.

It is against the Federalist principles that our Replublic was founded.

/set conspiracy theorist on full

If we were actually in a real democracy right now and not this Hostile Occupation (possibly by the NWO, Illuminati, or just a loose association of the ginourmously rich and powerful) it wouldn't even be an issue. This is all beside the point.

/set conspiracy theroist on minimum

As we know, one major classical difference between Republicans and Democrats is Big Government vs Small Government... The Republicans have some ties to the original Federalists. Federalism, very broadly and generally, is about limiting the Federal Government's power to matters of defense and other all-encompassing things, and leaving most things up to the states. Republicans want a big military and a small government - this is why you see them throwing money into defense and taking out of programs like Medicare or Social Security. Democrats, on the other hand, want big government and small military. They want to take some of that defense budget (not that I disagree necessarily, I mean, we do spend more than anyone by far) and then throw it into a bunch of new social programs, expanding Medicare, Social Security, and more.

Anyway, the court case that was just at the supreme court was Raich vs. Ashcraft (now Gonzales). Basically, it was to decide which government should take precedence when it comes to Medical Marijuana - State or Federal. The argument had nothing to do with whether marijuana was a valid medicine, it was about economics and a small little piece of the constitution. The Federal Government argued that Medical Marijuana falls under their complete and total jurisdiction beause it is "interstate commerce". They argued that because there was marijuana being grown, medically or not, paid for or given to a patient freely, its mere existence effects the illicit marijuana market (which the Feds have some stake in keeping strong) even if the marijuana is expressly grown for a patient and given directly to them...

The Supreme Court decided 6-3, democrats vs republicans, surprisingly, that Medical Marijuana laws in individual states are superceded by the Federal ban on marijuana because of the commerce-clause. This more than ever affirmed to me that the two party system is merely an illusion and we live in a one party system. Now, ATF and DEA agents can at will raid legitimate state-licesned Medical Marijuana Gardens and Dispensiaries. Before this decision, if the state officials weren't down with the operation, then it wasn't legal and damages would have to be paid if the operation was legit. Now, federal agents can target any one in any state and hold them accountable to federal laws. This means in California, where marijuana possesion has been decriminalized to a fine for most possesions of under an ounce, simply carrying around a single gram can get you taken to federal prison for possessing a federally illegal substance. It also means that legitimate medical patients could go to jail, but more importantly, if the government decides to seriously crack down on things, patients will not have a safe and secure source to get their medicine and will be forced to the black market (where they want us, anyway). The judges that made the decision closed with "you should petition congress on the issue of medical marijuana", as if this hasn't been done before. In fact, a measure is put before congress yearly by one of the Libertarian politicians, I believe. Support for it is actually seemingly falling in congress, while the numbers for the general populance seem to show that most people think medical marijuana should be legal. One congressman has said he thinks in a secret vote, most politicians would vote for it, though, as many of them privately support it.

This is why Federalism is a good thing. States rights SHOULD come first. Moral legislation like this is REGIONAL. There's some states where you can't buy porn, and there's some states where you can't buy fireworks. Drugs should be regulated the same way - by the states. They are, after all, a health and safety thing, generally the job of local governments.

*note, having wireless keyboard dropping keys trouble

[delta9]

Cannabis clubs close their doors
June 10, 2005 - record-bee.com (http://www.record-bee.com/Stories/0,1413,255~33907~2914506,00.html)

A Ukiah cannabis club with a branch in LA and some 20,000 customers has closed its doors after it said it got a warning that federal drug agents may be coming to close it down.

Scott Feil, who runs the United Medical Caregiver Clinic on North State Street, said Thursday that he believed the DEA would come to Ukiah to shut them down.

A second cannabis club on North State Street -- Compassionate Caregivers of Ukiah -- appeared to have shut down as well.

The buzz among marijuana dispensaries at the moment is that the federal Drug Enforcement Agency is linking up with the Internal Revenue Service to go after cannabis clubs. The LA branch of the UMCC voluntarily closed down Tuesday.

"The main decision to close (in Ukiah) was made because I have no defense," Feil said. "The defense was taken away. California voters' rights were taken away."

Feil refers to Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision that gave federal drug agents authority to continue to prosecute medical marijuana growers, patients and caregivers despite Prop. 215, the California law that legalized medical marijuana use and cultivation.

According to Feil, the closest place for medical marijuana patients to buy marijuana now is in Oakland, and he predicted the Supreme Court decision would simply "drive people to the black market."

Theresa Schilling at state Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office said Thursday that while under state law medical marijuana remains legal, "the sad reality is, there is a risk."

Feil said he'd been told the DEA was in Ukiah Thursday, but Sheriff Tony Craver said Thursday he'd not heard of it. Craver said when the Supreme Court decision came down, he "had a hunch the DEA may crack down on the large scale dispensaries."

The medical marijuana dispensaries have become controversial in Ukiah, where many residents and government authorities have come to believe they are mostly serving recreational marijuana users through marijuana prescriptions written by doctors who are ready to provide them to anyone. They are said to reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process upon which they pay no taxes and still charge medical marijuana patients street prices for the pot they buy.

For those reasons, the city of Ukiah had passed an urgency ordinance in May putting a moratorium on more cannabis clubs.

Meanwhile, the city is continuing to move forward on backyard medical marijuana growing regulations.

The Ukiah Planning Commission on Wednesday night passed its version of an ordinance that will now go to the Ukiah City Council for consideration.

The ordinance would limit medical marijuana growing to state regulations which allow six mature and 12 immature plants at any time. Of those, the Planning Commission limited outdoor growing to two plants per patient or caregiver, but no more than four outdoor plants at any household. Also, outdoor plants must be no taller than 6 feet and must be kept at least 15 feet from the fence line.

All other plants would have to be grown in a secure, enclosed space either in the home itself or a shed, greenhouse or garage.

According to Planning Commissioner Judy Pruden, "A secure location is not a gated fence." The indoor operations must have roofs, doors and locks.

According to Pruden, the new regulations make medical marijuana growing in the city a "permitted use," which means that anyone who wants to grow it at home must get a use permit from the city. To do that, the patient or caregiver would have to show a medical marijuana ID card (available with a doctor's recommendation from the county health department by appointment) to city staff.

Also, any greenhouses or sheds that patients or caregivers want to build that would be bigger than 126 square feet would also have to conform to building codes and be permitted by the city.

Even though it was controversial, the commissioners also retained the suggested provision that no medical marijuana growing be allowed within 300 feet of schools, parks, rest homes, churches and recreation areas.

However, they allowed that any medical marijuana patients living in those restricted zones could appeal to the planning staff directly for an exemption.

Finally, the commission also recommends forming a five-member citizens advisory board to help mediate neighbor complaints -- particularly odor complaints -- surrounding medical marijuana growing. Pruden said she would like to see such a board formed under the auspices of the county health department.

"It could be effective in mediating the nuisance factors," Pruden said and lauded the medical marijuana proponents for the idea.

Included in that group were representatives of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Medical Marijuana Patients Union, which Pruden said had written a very good "declaration of policy," which the commission adopted as it own introduction to the ordinance.

"It really set a positive note," she said.

The new growing ordinance will now go to the City Council, but Pruden points out that the council is not likely to be able to take it up before its meeting in the third week of July, and then even if it passed it would not take effect for 30 days.

That means, if the city extends the urgency moratorium on outdoor planting at its meeting next week, growers could lose what they consider important outdoor growing time in this season.

[delta9]

First, I really meant what is the issue with the drug being cracked down on in general, and leading to why should it be legal AT ALL - but that for another day, i wasnt very clear.
I'll touch on it today.

Attributed to Lincoln, but not likely really said by him, this quote still has plenty of truth to it:
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
The issue with the drug being cracked down on, in general, is because use of marijuana, recreational, medical, or spiritual, is a victomless crime (with responsible use). Marijuana has been used by people for thousands of years for many many many things (cannabis timeline (http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_timeline.php)). Marijuana, also known as weed, is actually not a "weed", but a dioecious flowering plant in the genus Cannabis. The genus Cannabis contains three species that I know of; C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis. The sativa variety contains both psychoactive "drug" strains and industrial strains. The indica variety is traditionally used for making hashish and has been introduced into the sativa strains. Most pot you buy these days is a mix of sativa and indica.

Making "Marijuana" illegal has illegalized HEMP, which is the industrial strains. There are many industrial uses of marijuana that are quite interesting and we really should pursue, including but not limited to, textiles, paper, and even FUEL for cars. Hemp seed contains slightly less protein than soy, but the proteins are of higher quality (and marijuana resists UV-B light, whereas soy has problems with it) (hemp seeds also cannot get you high, there are little to no active chemicals in the seeds).

Marijuana is a *great* industrial crop because it grows just about everywhere, is easy to grow, doesn't require many pesticides (cotton, on the other hand, requires TONS of pesticides, some say as much as HALF of the pesticides in the US), doesn't need much fertilizer, fields don't need to be rotated as often (hemp leaves and recycles used minerals by leaving many of its roots behind), and so much more.

There are 30+ (some say as many as 60) chemicals in marijuana called "cannabinoids". These cannabinoids attach themselves to receptors in our bodies called "cannabinoid receptors". When it comes to chemicals connecting to receptors, there are generally two kinds: agonists, which stimulate the receptor, and antagonists, which block the receptor. The main pyschoactive cannabinoid which produces effects is called "delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol", also known simply as THC. Another main cannabinoid is called "cannabidol", or CBD. CBD is now thought to be something of an anti-psychoactive. Industrial strains are high in CBD and low in THC, if you try to use it to "get high", you'll just get a headache; medical strains are the opposite, high in THC and low in CBD. Our bodies have two types of cannabinoid receptors we have noticed - designated CB1 and CB2. Here comes the interesting part. The CB2 receptors are all up IN our immune system. Undoubtably, scientifically, marijuana has some valid medical effects (medmjscience.org (medmjscience.org/) for more in depth information). It should, by now, come as no surprise that your government occaisonally lies to you for their own interests. Anyway, since cannabinoids can activate or block receptors in our immune system, cannabinoids will be very useful in further figuring out just how our immune system WORKS, as well as develop new medicines to exploit our new knowledge of our immune systems... Interesting new research is showing marijuana may be an anti-cancer agent. We're just not sure which cannabinoids are responsible...

Anyway, I don't know if I answered your question at all, but I have to go tickle my receptors right now, so I'll finish out the rest of it, later... if I don't forget ;)