Oh, I get it. Once we open the door a crack, then the potheads will come flooding through, eating all our Doritos and soda.
:rolleyes:
Oh, and the main argument seems to have something to do with America’s “addiction problem,” whatever that may be - which, even if “we” have problems with addiction, should leave marijuana neatly out of the debate.
Is this a rant about medical marijuana or about lawyers? If the latter, then I imagine the same place that we get lawyers who represent criminal defendants, large corporations, and the Klan.
Read your own link, dude:
“Attorneys for *the Bush administration *and two California women sparred Monday before the Supreme Court over the use of marijuana as a legitimate medical treatment.” Emphasis added by me.
I was listening to NPR public radio this morning, and there was a long interview with the defendants. They also had some really ripe, creepy quotes from a representative from Drug Free America Foundation who are also providing lawyers, I think.
You know, I’m pretty straight-laced, squeaky-clean, rigidly-square anti-drug. Very (personally) anti-drug, though I do know a few people who seem to use some drugs (like pot) with a measure of temperance.
Anyway. With all that said, I don’t get what the big deal is with medical marijuana. It seems really wrong to deny relief to people who are suffering from these horrible illnesses. I figure that God created certain herbs and plants for specific reasons, and that the medicinal use of pot is a good thing. To smoke in order to relax or zone out of escape life is a different issue (and one that isn’t really any of my business, as long as people are behaving responsibly), but clearly that is not the issue with medical marijuana—it’s for medical relief. I don’t see why there is any controversy here.
So, these are the same attorneys that represent an ex-alcoholic POTUS. And Congress is worried about 20,000 deaths per year from drug abuse. Has anybody informed them that there are over 100,000 alcohol-related deaths per year for at least the last 20 years (about 40,000/yr for alcohol-related diseases alone)?
And I don’t get the concern over negative health side effects for medical marijuana. Is there a legal drug treatment that doesn’t come with side effects? Chemotherapy and radiation treatments, anyone?
And since when are politicians more qualified to decide medical viability than physicians?
This isn’t the same. Defendants, no matter how scummy, deserve an honest and vigorous defense to make the system work. But no one in any bar is required to work for the government and defend scummy government policies.
I feel it’s worth pointing out that the normally obnoxious states of Alabama, Looziana and Mississippi have sided against the government on federalism grounds, despite not allowing medical marijuana themselves. I did not expect that, and I applaud them for it.
I don’t want to get all legal and factual on you, but this case has more to do about federalism, the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and the propriety of judicial intervention in policy matters than it does about the necessity of marijuana in medical treatments. But don’t let that get in your way. Calling anyone who disagrees with your views “scummy” is probably very persuasive.
And as such, I’m gonna be very interested in seeing how the conservative justices line up.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the sort of “strict constructionists” that the Bush administrations wants on the bench be against the Bush administration on this one? Someone growing pot in their own back yard–for whatever use–doesn’t strike me as something that has a great deal to do with interstate commerce…
While those are important issues, putting them ahead of helping to allieviate the suffering of the terminally ill is, indeed, scummy. Surely, there must be some way of resolving those issues without doing so on the backs of people dying from cancer.
There are ways of resolving those issues. The courts shouldn’t really be a part of them. If you wanna call people “scummy” take aim at the legislators who created and continue to support our drug policy. The other people are, to a greater or lesser degree, just doing their jobs…
I doubt that the conservatives on the Court will have a problem with this case. Check out Justice Thomas’ concurring opinions in Lopez and Morrison. He has the most radical views on the Commerce Clause. It would go way well beyond the limits the majority set out in Lopez and Morrison. And even as far back as Justice Thomas wants to roll back the Commerce Clause this case would still be fine.
And do you have a cite that the Bush Administation has said it wants strict constructionists on the bench. The two Justices that the President has pointed out for type he likes are Justices Scalia and Justice Thomas and neither of them are strict constructionists.
If I were an attorney, I’d gladly fight the medical pot folks on this issue. Congress has passed a law banning marijuana, and now states are trying to argue that they can trump Federal law when they feel like it? Fer crying out loud, have we time warped back to the days of the Articles of Confederation? States have to follow Federal laws, and courts are supposed to interpret those laws, not strike them down for every sob story that comes along.
And, I will add, if I were a congressman, I’d gladly vote for a bill to allow for the prescribed use of marijuana in a smart, reasonable, and controlled way. I don’t think I’d ever vote for a ballot referendum on the subject, however, because the folks who push those seem pretty clear that those are just gateway laws to total legalization, which I don’t think I’m for.
The argument for California’s medical marijuana laws are not based upon any form of trumping the federal government’s laws, they’re about defining the limits of what the federal government can legislate. In section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government’s legislative limits were defined to cover interstate commerce and other interstate issues, as well as interactions with foreign nations and monetary policy. California’s medical marijuana law is intended to create some oversight over pot that is grown only in California and consumed only in California. Hence, some would argue, the Constitution prohibits any federal legislation that might declare it illegal.
I’m a physician who believes that there is a role for medical marijuana. I believe it is a useful tool for certain situations, particularly severe nausea from chemotherapy, pain control in metastatic cancer, and appetite stimulation in certain wasting conditions, like AIDS.
However, I have to state that I have seen it advocated for use in situations where I don’t think it’s appropriate: Chronic back pain, chronic headaches, fibromyalgia, and even elevated intra-ocular pressure (pre-glaucoma) and glaucoma. There are far far better meds for glaucoma than pot, which would necessitate smoking a doobie every 4 hours around the clock to significantly drop pressures enough to avoid visual loss. And I don’t believe that medications which are primary mood-alterers are appropriate drugs for chronic non-malignant pain.
So I think marijuana should be available for medical use, but with far more stringent controls than seem to be advocated (or in use) in many settings. It’s gotta take more than just the signature of a licensed MD to get pot. I know my colleagues. A lot of them do serious damage with their current prescribing habits!
Federal legislation outside the scope of the limited powers granted to Congress is unconstitutional and should be rejected by the courts, sob stories notwithstanding. The existing federal drug laws, especially as relating to drugs that have originated within and not left a particular state, are an obscene perversion of the commerce clause and should have been thrown out ages ago.
:mad: 