Take that Ashcroft: Court Backs Doctors On Marijuana

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Court Backs Doctors on Marijuana
Tue Oct 29, 3:48 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled for the first time Tuesday that the government cannot revoke doctors' prescription licenses for recommending marijuana to sick patients.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that the Justice Department's policy interferes with the free-speech rights of doctors and patients.

"An integral component of the practice of medicine is the communication between doctor and a patient. Physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients," Chief Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder said.

The 9th Circuit upheld a 2-year-old court order prohibiting the government from stripping doctors of their licenses to dispense medication. The policy was blocked before any licenses were actually revoked.

The dispute is one of several cases resulting from medical marijuana laws on the books in eight states.

The government argued that doctors were aiding and abetting criminal activity for recommending marijuana because it is an illegal drug under federal narcotics laws.

But the appeals court said doctors have a constitutional right to speak candidly with their patients about marijuana without fear of government sanctions.

The court said doctors could get in trouble only if they actually helped patients obtain marijuana. Merely recommending the drug "does not translate into aiding and abetting, or conspiracy," Schroeder said.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, had urged the judges to preserve the sanctity of doctor-patient interactions. "That is speech that is protected by the First Amendment," he argued.

The case was brought by patients' rights groups and doctors including Neil Flynn of the University of California at Davis, who said that marijuana may help some patients but that doctors have been fearful of recommending it.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup responded by prohibiting the Justice Department from revoking Drug Enforcement Administration licenses to dispense medication "merely because the doctor recommends medical marijuana to a patient based on a sincere medical judgment." Alsup's order also prevented federal agents "from initiating any investigation solely on that ground."

The case was an outgrowth of a measure approved by California voters in 1996. It allows patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

Following the measure's passage, the Clinton administration said doctors who recommend marijuana would lose their federal licenses to prescribe medicine, could be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and could face criminal charges. The Bush administration continued the fight.

The other states with medical marijuana laws are Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court said clubs that sell marijuana to the sick with a doctor's recommendation are breaking federal drug laws.

Pot clubs continue to operate, including several in San Francisco, as local authorities look the other way. But federal officials have raided many clubs in California, the state where they are more prevalent.

One case challenging such raids is pending before the 9th Circuit. That case, brought by an Oakland pot club, argues that the states have the right to experiment with their own drug laws and that Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as an avenue to be free of pain.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
It's got nothing to do with Ashcroft.

Laws are challenged and rechallenged in a never ending rotunda trying to make sense out of them. That's the way the system works.

It's too bad that the pro legalisation crowd doesn't really care about the pain relieving aspects. It's about those wanting to get high with no consequences. They could give a damn about cancer patients.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
Ashcroft's Justice Department continues to fight against the will of a growing majority of ordinary Amercians who want the insanity and propaganda to end. We're mad. We're tired of Prohibition. We're tired of crime caused by government-created black markets. We're tired of trampled rights and hypocritical morals (i.e. drugs are baaad, but property confiscation is OK). It's time for the nonsense to end. While the appeals court did not touch on the legalisation issue, their logic was very sound: adults have the right to think and speak for themselves, even about subjects the government doesn't want them to consider.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
We're tired of Prohibition.

I've never seen a poll that said illegal drugs should be legalised.

I do have problems with the way we enforce the drug laws but I AM NOT for another damn crutch that Liberals will blame everything but themselves for!

Freedom of Speech! Give me a friggin break! What a joke!:|
 

NewSc2

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,325
2
0
i think the majority of people out there think that people who are caught with marijuana should not be put in jail.

It's stupid to relate marijuana with other violent crimes, such as that ad going around TV showing people who buy marijuana indirectly support crimes. Opening up a liquor store can be related to violent crimes, and buying cigarettes are supporting the tobacco companies that people claim kill others (which is probably true) in second-hand smoke.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
It always amazes me that sampling 800 or so people can tell the rest of us what we want.

I have no probs with medical use. The active ingredient that is useful can be applied in a patch.

The money for legalisation DOES NOT come from the medical community!

Follow the money....
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that the Justice Department's policy interferes with the free-speech rights of doctors and patients.

I would have preferred them to have spiked it on the stronger constitutional basis of the tenth amendment rather than the first, but whatever works.

It's too bad that the pro legalisation crowd doesn't really care about the pain relieving aspects. It's about those wanting to get high with no consequences. They could give a damn about cancer patients.

You're right, i don't care. I don't smoke it, never have, never will, and think those who use it for recreational purposes are complete dumbasses. Still, it's none of the federal government's business IMHO, and there is no compelling federal interest in overseeing who uses marijuana, or for what reason. See my reasoning for this opinion above.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
What's the 9th Circuit's batting average for getting it's rulings overturned. It's pretty high if I remember. Don't be surprised if this one does too especially because of the basis of the ruling. That's an ultra-liberal court.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
So it's Ok to infer meaning in any of the amendments just to get your way? Even when it is obvious the intent NEVER could be stretched to that point and just to get your way unless you were a totally self absorbed liberal? You make me ill!:|

Would you give the employers complete access to medical records before they hire someone? Allow insurance companies to set rates as THEY SEE FIT to cover losses either imagined or real? Don't they DESERVE the same freedom you would give a drug user?

If it's not the Federal Government's business to tell someone not to smoke a mind altering substance then how do you explain the millions, yes millions, of laws that govern the activities of PRIVATE business? Do not they deserve the same 'freedom?.

There has NEVER been a Libertarian Society! There never will be as it won't work!


 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
"The government's drug-reform policy is driven by a Fundamentalist Christian sense of morality that sees any of these illegal substances used as evil."

Nice quote from the CNN article.
It always amazes me that sampling 800 or so people can tell the rest of us what we want.
Population sampling is sound mathematical theory. When done right, a seemingly small sample can be very revealing...and accurate.

The marijuana laws will have to be loosened eventually. Both the UK and Canada are recent examples of modern industrialized nations that realized total prohibition of marijuana is a venture into folly and have softened their hard-nosed stance.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Let someone run for elected office that is for legalisation and THEN put forth a change in policy.

That is how it's done. Not subverting the meaning of the Constitution and twisting it to ones own end.
 

mithrandir2001

Diamond Member
May 1, 2001
6,545
1
0
That's an ultra-liberal court.
And Ashcroft is an ultra-conservative. Call the Court a necessary counterweight. John Ashcroft does not represent America. He represents the bone thrown to conservatives by GWB. Everybody else is counting the days until he's gone.
Let someone run for elected office that is for legalisation and THEN put forth a change in policy.
I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Legalisation lies many steps down the road and we may never get there. But the American people are not happy about total absolute prohibition, which is what Ashcroft and the Justice Department want.

And let's look at what the Court said: a doctor can recommend medicial marijuana to his patient without losing his license. Not prescribe, deliver, etc. Recommend, as a result of sound medical analysis. If you say you don't support that (Ashcroft), you are out of touch with reality and far away from the pulse of mainstream America.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Can someone explain why this is even an issue with pot and not with morphine? Is morphine just not quite as illegal as pot or something?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Morphine is considered a class II narcotic. That means it is legal, but severely restricted. Pot, along with heroin, crack, etc. is a class I which means the government considers it to have no medical use.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If it's not the Federal Government's business to tell someone not to smoke a mind altering substance then how do you explain the millions, yes millions, of laws that govern the activities of PRIVATE business? Do not they deserve the same 'freedom?.

I don't try to explain the "millions, yes, millions of laws" governing the activities of private businesses. I'm sure most of those laws are simply set a standard so that companies, customers, and investors can operate efficiently in the marketplace. Yes, i do think it's an appropriate role for government to play. What benefit would there be to not having consistent, uniform standards of weights and measures, or rules of accounting, or what constitutes a legal contract or fraud.

As for it not being the federal government's business to tell someone not to smoke a mind-altering substance, i'm curious as to your premise for why it is. What compelling societal interest in there in the question of whether Little Johnnie takes a hit at a Phish concert, or in the privacy of his own home? Your inference is that our minds belong to the federal government, therefore they wish to control us from altering their "property" in a way they (or you) don't agree with.

There has NEVER been a Libertarian Society! There never will be as it won't work!

This isn't about establishing a Liberatarian society. Good and correct ideas don't care where they come from, so in this case it doesn't really matter that decriminalization is also a Libertarian platform plank.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,754
451
126
Ashcroft's Justice Department continues to fight against the will of a growing majority of ordinary Amercians who want the insanity and propaganda to end. We're mad. We're tired of Prohibition.
Then you'll have to find remedy in the legislature, since Ashcroft is obligated to defend the laws of the United States as passed by the United States Congress and interpreted by the US Supreme Court, like every Attorney General before him. Ashcroft's position WRT federal narcotics law is no different than Janet Reno, or William Barr before her, or Richard Thornburgh, Ed Meese, William Smith, my brain is beginning to hurt thinking back that far, let's just say EVERY US AG appointed in the last 50+ years.

Of course, if Ashcroft simply took it upon himself to ignore his duty to uphold the position of the United States Government as set forth in federal law, then every Ashcroft-bashing kook would be wailing that he is failing to perform his sworn duty like he promised to do during his confirmation hearings.

One would think that if all these Americans were supportive of marijuana legalization, it wouldn't be political suicide to run on a legalization platform in 95% of US districts, yet I can count on one hand all of the congressmen and women who would dare take such a political risk. Hmmmm...
 

C'DaleRider

Guest
Jan 13, 2000
3,048
0
0

It always amazes me that sampling 800 or so people can tell the rest of us what we want.



Population sampling is sound mathematical theory. When done right, a seemingly small sample can be very revealing...and accurate.


You can't tell Tominator that........he won't believe you one bit. He still rails against Consumer Reports for being biased about their reliability projections concerning automobiles and how American autos are not quite as reliable as Japanese imports. While he claims CR's reporting and sampling is biased, he has yet to show why or how they are biased, and also has yet explain why all other sources, such as Edmunds and JD Powers, all mirror CR's reporting of the statistics.

Another weird note, he'll blast CR, et al, for being biased against American cars, but will accept CR and the group when they laud an American car for being reliable.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
You are correct. I question everything!

I always want MORE proof and every person on earth has a motive. It may be very hard to find, but there is a PERSONAL motive.

Money is number one.



Why don't we dispense with the political system totally.....afterall we can statistically sample! Look at all that money saved. We can be ruled by 800 people and no one will care!:|

Usually when someone attacks another they've exhausted thier argument.:D
 

jjones

Lifer
Oct 9, 2001
15,424
2
0
I don't find any fault with the court's ruling but what has Ashcroft to do with it? It's not like this is his personal crusade like your title implies.
 

smp

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
5,215
0
76
Tominator - What's wrong with wanting to legalize pot for recreational smoking? Are you okay with alcohol being legal?
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: jjones
I don't find any fault with the court's ruling but what has Ashcroft to do with it? It's not like this is his personal crusade like your title implies.

You mean besides the fact that they are completely ignoring the law??
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
So it's Ok to infer meaning in any of the amendments just to get your way? Even when it is obvious the intent NEVER could be stretched to that point and just to get your way unless you were a totally self absorbed liberal? You make me ill!

lol, kinda the way gun nut conservatives think having arms as part of a well regulated militia means selling guns to everyone:p
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: jjones
I don't find any fault with the court's ruling but what has Ashcroft to do with it? It's not like this is his personal crusade like your title implies.

You mean besides the fact that they are completely ignoring the law??

Laws don't matter if they're unconstitutional.

Even if the federal law is constitutional, who says it can't be over ridden by a local law? It's the old state rights debate.

IMHO, doctors should be able to prescribe anything which will help their patients.
 

bGIveNs33

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2002
1,543
0
71
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Originally posted by: jjones
I don't find any fault with the court's ruling but what has Ashcroft to do with it? It's not like this is his personal crusade like your title implies.

You mean besides the fact that they are completely ignoring the law??

Laws don't matter if they're unconstitutional.

Even if the federal law is constitutional, who says it can't be over ridden by a local law? It's the old state rights debate.

IMHO, doctors should be able to prescribe anything which will help their patients.

Laws DO matter if they aren't constitutional. They are still the law. You can't just decide that you want to break a law if you feel it's unconstitutional. If one feels that a law is unconstitutional, one can then challenge it. The 9th circuit court of appeals has NO right to re-write the law. They have a history of doing it and I'm sure they'll do it again. The U.S. Supreme Court has more leadway in their interpretation, and they can declare a law unconsititutional. But prohibiting marijuana in no way is unconstitutional. And, despite popular belief... States can NOT pass laws that contridict federal law. I realize that states do try to do this all the time, and our government lets the get away with it. And, the reason they get away with it is because of opinions like yours. If the mass population doesn't care, then why will the government? We are their employer anyway.