Federal Appeals Court OKs Medical Marijuana in Some Cases

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
link

Thank goodness.
John Ashcroft has got to go.

WTF right does he think the federal government has to interfere in matters that should be decided by individual states.
There's no constitutional right for the feds to be involved in someone growing their own pot or choosing to commit suicide with the assistance of a doctor.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
While I'm not a tremendous proponent of "states' rights" arguments . . . I am troubled when bureaucrats . . . or dare I say theocrats . . . set medical policy.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,411
4,790
126
Not to defend Asshcroft(ick), but he certainly wasn't the first to be an idiot on this subject.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,411
4,790
126
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: sandorski
Not to defend Asshcroft(ick), but he certainly wasn't the first to be an idiot on this subject.
He's been one of the biggest in a good while though.
Probably, he is Asshcroft after all. ;) :D
 

Bitdog

Member
Dec 3, 2003
143
0
0
I don't think that the government drug war policy represents the will of the people.
In Alaska, there was a vote to recriminalize pot.
The federal government corrupted the vote by threatening to with hold federal financial support,
for roads, projects, mostly everything.
Then, the federal government has alot of brain washed voters inported into Alaska because it's the USA
western outpost there is a lot of millitary here.
And the vast coast line requires a lot of coast guards men.
I went down to view the vote tally in our town and noticed that 70% of the vote tally people were also the JUST SAY NO team.
It was & is still unconstutional in Alaska to deny some one their rights to privacy for a quarter pound of marijuana per person.
Because the social harm of marijuana does not warrent the loss of the right to privacy.
Many people make a living off of the federal drug war and when they voted for recriminalization
they actually voted to keep their job or not.
After all the vote influence, the Alaska vote was 54 for recriminalization & 46 against recriminalization.
I shouldn't have the right to vote away some one elses rights.
If you don't want to do drugs, don't then.
Don't blame the results of abuse on the drug it's self.
Thinking that the world will fall apart if drugs were legal is obserd since drugs are every where right now.
The federal government can not keep heroin out of their maximum security federal jails.
The fact is, it's readily available, along with every other drug.
The guard are often the ones who bring it in.
They made ciggerettes illegal in jail, so the guards could make lots of money off the inmates, and not commit a crime
only an internal policy violation. So since they police themselves on that one, the corruption continues.
They don't care if the inmates get cancer and die. That's for sure.
Just like our government doesn't arrest some one for pot for their own good.
IT'S A BUSINESS
the buisness of corruption, targeting, raceism, etc.

Bitdog

 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: Talon
Isn't John Walters the real driving force on U.S. Federal drug policy?
He's the drug czar and supposedly the one that defines the policy.
But for some reason, Ashcroft seems to be on some kind of mission to show the states that he is in charge and can tell them what to do about issues that the federal government has no authority to make laws about.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Don't hold your breath on this one. The 9th Circuit is the single most overturned in the country. They are also the most pro-active and liberal. The only way this (DEA scheduling) is going to change is if the regs are changed. The State of California cannot abolish or ignore a federal regulation just because it feels like it, despite the 9th Circuit's current opinion.

DEA does not give a registrant permission to dispense or write a prescription for a Schedule I substance, unless he is a registered reasearcher. Getting a reasearch registration for THC or like compunds is difficult, since to date, no sufficient evidence of effective and irreplaceable medical use has been substantiated. Any doctor dispensing or writing a prescription for a Schedule I drug without proper registration is risking his career (and freedom).

Many think it sucks, that may be so, but until FDA and DEA have been convinced that THC is a needed drug, this regulation listing THC as Schedule I will stand, and the states will have to deal with it.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Look Ashcroft may be a jack booted thug trying to steal all our freedom but give him credit for at least doing the job he's assigned. He may be an ass but it's his responsiblity to enforce the law and the law says it's illegal until the courts or congress say otherwise. He would be a pretty lousy attorney general if he didn't enforce the laws as written whether or not he agrees with them.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,637
5,130
126
Originally posted by: rahvin
Look Ashcroft may be a jack booted thug trying to steal all our freedom but give him credit for at least doing the job he's assigned. He may be an ass but it's his responsiblity to enforce the law and the law says it's illegal until the courts or congress say otherwise. He would be a pretty lousy attorney general if he didn't enforce the laws as written whether or not he agrees with them.
I think a smart person who sees the absurdity of drug laws will simply not emphasize that area.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY