Supreme Court/medical marijuana
 

What does everybody think? I think it should legal and up to the States. Nothing this heinous administration does suprises me anymore though. :distress:

Supreme Court allows prosecution of 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.

The rest is here.http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/sc...ana/index.html

With all due respect, the prior admin. was hardly a friend of medical MJ use? and few if any current D's are really for it in the sense that they will actually vote for it :shrug:

This seems cruel. Legalize it. What a waste of the DEA's time.

I concur. A little perspective, people? Ha, but why would I expect that? :rolleyes:

I will always say pot shoulf be legal for all uses. It is far safer from a medical perspective than alcohol, etc. One big prob. is people can grow it in their backyard and the Fed's and State would have a hard time taxing it. For example, if the various govt.'s did not have the various cig. and booze taxes, they could not operate at all. So, they are not about to cut into that by legalizing pot in any way. Moreover, the far right and for that matter most of the middle cannot stand the idea of people being stoned and not in church despite the fact that I think most of them do that anyway. Do as I say not as I do :rolleyes: Finally, the drug companies would NEVER allow it as they alone want to sell it or the drugs made to emulate it.

Yet another reason why I'll NEVER understand the liberal love out there for Clinton. It boggles my mind.

That is true. The D's need to get a backbone and soon. This Administration make me want to smoke a joint just to forget they are in office though. How about medical Marijuana for surviving the Bush Administration?

I know. I think Rove saw that he could label Clinton a liberal and then use the dislike of Clinton to put Clinton's rather to the right of centrist positions to redefine the word liberal to there, thus making the far far right seem just plain ole conservative.

Interestingly, Thomas and Renquist dissented from this opinion - I do not have a copy of it, but would love to hear what they say. My bet is some state's rights arguement, which is RANK hypocrisy coming from them.

He was in no way perfect and not one of my favorites. Our country was sure as hell a lot better off when he was in office though.

:laugh: now THAT's an idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be honest, I don't even think many liberals really like Clinton. I get the vibe that they say they do because they know how hated he is by the right and they like pissing them off by professing their love for him. His policies left a lot to be desired, especially in his second term where he essentially became a Republican (obviously not as loony, but conservative nonetheless.).

I agree. AND - I think people look at Clinton and then W and then think, Clinton was a comparative Godsend. Thus, politics :cool:

Tell that to the people on welfare during his administration's reign. Clinton was all charm, but when it came to action, he had people thinking that he delivered more than he did. Some of his policies were downright despicable.

Hillary won't get my vote if she runs and I'll happily warn people against her.

I Beg To Differ
 

I voted for it when it came up for a vote (BOTH TIMES!)...and Im a DEM :shrug: and the weird thing is, I dont even smoke it!

Too bad Clinton was so adamantly opposed to it. His administration wanted doctors who even recommended it, not prescribed it, to have their licenses revoked and possibly serve jail time.

by the way Sandra O'Connor also dissented.

I wasnt aware he was so "adamantly opposed to it"....as I recall, he took a lot of flack for the "I didnt inhale" comment, and I think he avoided the issue for fear of being castigated by either side...just my 2cts.

Um, I think only a small percentage of the consumers would be able to, or choose to, grow it for their own use. Besides, I'm sure if they did legalize it, they would just do a system like, above so many plants, they get taxed, and everyone has to register or else they are in violation of the law, etc, blah.

Well, I can think of at least one place that's not so far from the USA where they don't have a big problem with marijuana.
http://www.lookupalliance.com/images...adian_flag.jpg :thumbsup:

Google "Clinton medical marijuana". If his administration wasn't adamantly opposed to it, my name is Winona Ryder. :thumbsup:

I know - but I can guess what she said!!!!!!! :laugh: The thought of Renquist and Thomas somehow balking at the far right (read Ashcroft's defense of the Fed. Law) in this case is interesting to say the least.

Here is a cool article on it:

Published on Tuesday, October 3, 2000 in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Blowing Smoke On Medical Marijuana
by Clarence Page

WASHINGTON -- Until now, I have admired Al Gore's candor on the marijuana question.
After all, he is the first presidential candidate to admit not only that he smoked marijuana but also that he inhaled it.

His boss, President Clinton, confessed during his 1992 campaign to smoking the wicked weed in his youth, but insisted that he "didn't inhale." That's like saying you subscribe to Playboy for the articles. Maybe he enjoyed that distinctive marijuana smell, which is sort of like burning socks.

On the Republican side, Texas Governor George W. Bush simply has avoided talking about anything naughty he might have done in the first three decades or so of his life. That is his right. Besides, no one can accuse you of lying if you don't say anything at all.

No, it is not the candidates' private lives from decades past, but their public positions at present that should concern us now.

With that, I find it informative to see how the first two baby boomers from major parties to face each other in a presidential election dance around the issue of medicinal marijuana.

It is informative because medicinal marijuana is what many Washington politicians call a "third rail" issue -- touch it and you die!

Bush and his running mate Dick Cheney have tried to avoid saying much on the issue, except that they "support states' rights" but also will "vigorously enforce" federal laws. That's a prudent, pragmatic position in the midst of a stormy and divisive political issue. That's also called having it both ways.

Gore, too, tries to have it both ways, although at different times. When he was asked by a young MTV audience member last week whether he supported the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use, the vice president responded that he did not. Current research, he said, does not show marijuana to be any more effective at relieving the pain and misery of cancer patients and others than less controversial methods.

I wondered what research he had been reading. A 1999 Institute of Medicine report commissioned by the Clinton-Gore administration, for example, found marijuana to be effective enough to be recommended for short-term use of up to six months by some seriously ill patients.

More than six months posed health risks, not because of the active ingredients, known as cannabinoids, but because of the respiratory damage smoking anything can cause.

Gore's response sounded all the more amazing when compared to his position during the primaries. When he was running against Bill Bradley and appealing to Democrats, he sounded a lot more open to the idea of letting doctors prescribe marijuana.

In a televised forum in Derry, N.H., last December. Gore poignantly recalled how his late sister's doctor prescribed marijuana for her before she died of cancer in 1984. She refused to take it, he said, but, "If it had worked for her, then I think she should have had the ability to get her pain relieved that way."

"I do not favor legalizing marijuana," he said, according to Associated Press reports. "But where you have sufficient controls, I think doctors ought to have that option."

Right on. And he was not alone. So far, Alaska, Washington state, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, Maine and the District of Columbia have passed voter initiatives to allow patients in need to have the choice that was offered to Al Gore's sister.

Hawaii's legislature passed such a law and its governor signed it in April. Colorado votes on a similar measure in November and supporters say its chances look good. None of the state ballot efforts for medicinal marijuana has failed, so far.

But the Clinton administration stands fast in its anti-marijuana position. After Gore's statement, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart maintained that, "We don't have conclusive scientific evidence that marijuana provides a therapeutic benefit that exceeds currently prescribed drugs."

And, presto! By May, the White House position became Al Gore's position, too. Answering a student in Cudahy, Calif., on May 11, Gore said he sees "no reliable evidence" that medical marijuana is an effective pain reliever.

Yes, it is interesting to see how quickly reliability can fade in the midst of an election campaign -- right along with candor.

Or maybe there's some truth, after all, to the rumors about early marijuana use causing late-life memory loss.

© 1999-2000 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

http://www.commondreams.org/views/100300-103.htm

Yep...
 

Legalize it already...So Oklahoma will be the richest state in the Union. Gotta love a state where the #1 cash crop is a illegal substance (It grows wild here too, see it alot) :nod:

*makes note to move to OK* :laugh:

wait so, the conservative judges voted for legalizing it for medical purposes and the liberal judges make it all illegal, how the hell did that happen :shrug:

i personally would vote to legalize, if for no other reason than to get some regulation. as a former drug abuser, i would never touch it again and i would hold my future child's head under water if i found it on her (i never refer to my future children in the masculine)... but that doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't be able to roll over and hit a pipe. especially for medical use. i've never had glaucoma or whatnot, but i've been high... and lordy, i can see how it could help.

ps, i voted for a republican over hillary clinton and my mother refused my calls for a month.