Take that Ashcroft: Court Backs Doctors On Marijuana

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

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.

Uh...cases don't start in the Supreme Court. They have to go though the rest of the court system first. The 9th Circuit is the path this one takes, and they're 100% right.

Prohibition of any drug which has positive effects on people in need is wrong. The 9th Circuit is trying to correct this hypocracy.

 

[bGIveNs33]

You are wrong. The 9th Circuit's job is to apply the law to the situation. They did NOT interpret the law, the re-wrote it. If you want to legalize marijuana, go call your local congressman(woman). Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I and defined as, "with no acccepted medical value in treatment". I know you can point to 1000's of doctors who disagree and that's fine. Take it to Congress. The Judicial system is the wrong venue to legislate new laws. There is NOTHING in the constituion that says you have a right to smoke marijuan for medicinal purposes. Take it to Congress. The 9th disctrict court IS wrong.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
You are wrong. The 9th Circuit's job is to apply the law to the situation. They did NOT interpret the law, the re-wrote it. If you want to legalize marijuana, go call your local congressman(woman). Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I and defined as, "with no acccepted medical value in treatment". I know you can point to 1000's of doctors who disagree and that's fine. Take it to Congress. The Judicial system is the wrong venue to legislate new laws. There is NOTHING in the constituion that says you have a right to smoke marijuan for medicinal purposes. Take it to Congress. The 9th disctrict court IS wrong.

California has made it clear that they will allow medical maryjane, no matter what the pentacostal justice department thinks, and I support them in that cause. I'm not a proponent of marijuana legalization. I do however believe that doctors should have access to any tool available.

Who decided that marijauana is schedule I? I doubt it was the congress, probably the FDA.

The 9th Circuit isn't re-writing laws. They're saying standards set in place are unconstitutional. That's their job.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
You are wrong. The 9th Circuit's job is to apply the law to the situation. They did NOT interpret the law, the re-wrote it. If you want to legalize marijuana, go call your local congressman(woman). Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I and defined as, "with no acccepted medical value in treatment". I know you can point to 1000's of doctors who disagree and that's fine. Take it to Congress. The Judicial system is the wrong venue to legislate new laws. There is NOTHING in the constituion that says you have a right to smoke marijuan for medicinal purposes. Take it to Congress. The 9th disctrict court IS wrong.

California has made it clear that they will allow medical maryjane, no matter what the pentacostal justice department thinks, and I support them in that cause. I'm not a proponent of marijuana legalization. I do however believe that doctors should have access to any tool available.

Who decided that marijauana is schedule I? I doubt it was the congress, probably the FDA.

The 9th Circuit isn't re-writing laws. They're saying standards set in place are unconstitutional. That's their job.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2001, said in very clear language that Marijuan had no legal exemptions for medical use. They voted 8-0. What California is doing is breaking the law. The federal law states that marijuana is prohibited. Doesn't it at least make you a bit upset that states are ignoring federal law? What if Alabama wanted to re-segregate their schools? I'm sure you would be mad then. All this boils down to is the law. Is California breaking it? Absolutely. Was the 9th District court wrong? Absolutely. Should marijuana be legalized? I think that should be looked into. There seems to be quite alot of studies that back that claim up. The court system is the wrong venue to do this in. As for who scheduled marijuan? Of course the FDA did. Congress has instilled that power into them. And I hope Ashcroft comes in and yanks every single licsence for each Doctor that prescribes marijuana. You really might want to look into taking a Government 101 class. I respect your opinion, but you don't seem to know how the law works.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
You are wrong. The 9th Circuit's job is to apply the law to the situation. They did NOT interpret the law, the re-wrote it. If you want to legalize marijuana, go call your local congressman(woman). Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I and defined as, "with no acccepted medical value in treatment". I know you can point to 1000's of doctors who disagree and that's fine. Take it to Congress. The Judicial system is the wrong venue to legislate new laws. There is NOTHING in the constituion that says you have a right to smoke marijuan for medicinal purposes. Take it to Congress. The 9th disctrict court IS wrong.

California has made it clear that they will allow medical maryjane, no matter what the pentacostal justice department thinks, and I support them in that cause. I'm not a proponent of marijuana legalization. I do however believe that doctors should have access to any tool available.

Who decided that marijauana is schedule I? I doubt it was the congress, probably the FDA.

The 9th Circuit isn't re-writing laws. They're saying standards set in place are unconstitutional. That's their job.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2001, said in very clear language that Marijuan had no legal exemptions for medical use. They voted 8-0. What California is doing is breaking the law. The federal law states that marijuana is prohibited. Doesn't it at least make you a bit upset that states are ignoring federal law? What if Alabama wanted to re-segregate their schools? I'm sure you would be mad then. All this boils down to is the law. Is California breaking it? Absolutely. Was the 9th District court wrong? Absolutely. Should marijuana be legalized? I think that should be looked into. There seems to be quite alot of studies that back that claim up. The court system is the wrong venue to do this in. As for who scheduled marijuan? Of course the FDA did. Congress has instilled that power into them. And I hope Ashcroft comes in and yanks every single licsence for each Doctor that prescribes marijuana. You really might want to look into taking a Government 101 class. I respect your opinion, but you don't seem to know how the law works.

I know how the law works. Someone challenged the federal policy in court. This makes it the judicial system's responsibilty to determine the constitionality of the law.

And no, it doesn't make me upset that California is challenging the federal government in this case. Regardless of the law, they're in the right. Sometimes federal law needs to be challenged.

If Alabama wanted to resegregate the schools, they could sure try. The difference in the two cases is that segregation is wrong.

What else is California's recourse? Are they going to talk to my congressman or senators on my behalf? No, they don't represent California. The state is just trying to establish its rights.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
You are wrong. The 9th Circuit's job is to apply the law to the situation. They did NOT interpret the law, the re-wrote it. If you want to legalize marijuana, go call your local congressman(woman). Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I and defined as, "with no acccepted medical value in treatment". I know you can point to 1000's of doctors who disagree and that's fine. Take it to Congress. The Judicial system is the wrong venue to legislate new laws. There is NOTHING in the constituion that says you have a right to smoke marijuan for medicinal purposes. Take it to Congress. The 9th disctrict court IS wrong.

California has made it clear that they will allow medical maryjane, no matter what the pentacostal justice department thinks, and I support them in that cause. I'm not a proponent of marijuana legalization. I do however believe that doctors should have access to any tool available.

Who decided that marijauana is schedule I? I doubt it was the congress, probably the FDA.

The 9th Circuit isn't re-writing laws. They're saying standards set in place are unconstitutional. That's their job.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2001, said in very clear language that Marijuan had no legal exemptions for medical use. They voted 8-0. What California is doing is breaking the law. The federal law states that marijuana is prohibited. Doesn't it at least make you a bit upset that states are ignoring federal law? What if Alabama wanted to re-segregate their schools? I'm sure you would be mad then. All this boils down to is the law. Is California breaking it? Absolutely. Was the 9th District court wrong? Absolutely. Should marijuana be legalized? I think that should be looked into. There seems to be quite alot of studies that back that claim up. The court system is the wrong venue to do this in. As for who scheduled marijuan? Of course the FDA did. Congress has instilled that power into them. And I hope Ashcroft comes in and yanks every single licsence for each Doctor that prescribes marijuana. You really might want to look into taking a Government 101 class. I respect your opinion, but you don't seem to know how the law works.

I know how the law works. Someone challenged the federal policy in court. This makes it the judicial system's responsibilty to determine the constitionality of the law.

And no, it doesn't make me upset that California is challenging the federal government in this case. Regardless of the law, they're in the right. Sometimes federal law needs to be challenged.

If Alabama wanted to resegregate the schools, they could sure try. The difference in the two cases is that segregation is wrong.

What else is California's recourse? Are they going to talk to my congressman or senators on my behalf? No, they don't represent California. The state is just trying to establish its rights.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the prohibition of marijuana. I don't know why people think there is. This law has already been challenge and the u.s. supreme court unanimously decided that you can NOT use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The 9th district court completely disregarded the supreme court. You say... "Regardless of the law, they're in the right". I can't even begin to start on that phrase. You just said disregard the law, and do what you think is right. In America, your opinion doesn't matter. That's why we have laws. I am in disbelief that we have citizens of this country that would disregard the law because they feel other wise. The U.S. Supreme court has already spoken. If you don't like the law, then legislate new laws.

 

[tcsenter]

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

Sure, and entry level samples start at 5,000 people, if you want any sort of decent confidence interval.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
You are wrong. The 9th Circuit's job is to apply the law to the situation. They did NOT interpret the law, the re-wrote it. If you want to legalize marijuana, go call your local congressman(woman). Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I and defined as, "with no acccepted medical value in treatment". I know you can point to 1000's of doctors who disagree and that's fine. Take it to Congress. The Judicial system is the wrong venue to legislate new laws. There is NOTHING in the constituion that says you have a right to smoke marijuan for medicinal purposes. Take it to Congress. The 9th disctrict court IS wrong.

California has made it clear that they will allow medical maryjane, no matter what the pentacostal justice department thinks, and I support them in that cause. I'm not a proponent of marijuana legalization. I do however believe that doctors should have access to any tool available.

Who decided that marijauana is schedule I? I doubt it was the congress, probably the FDA.

The 9th Circuit isn't re-writing laws. They're saying standards set in place are unconstitutional. That's their job.

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 14, 2001, said in very clear language that Marijuan had no legal exemptions for medical use. They voted 8-0. What California is doing is breaking the law. The federal law states that marijuana is prohibited. Doesn't it at least make you a bit upset that states are ignoring federal law? What if Alabama wanted to re-segregate their schools? I'm sure you would be mad then. All this boils down to is the law. Is California breaking it? Absolutely. Was the 9th District court wrong? Absolutely. Should marijuana be legalized? I think that should be looked into. There seems to be quite alot of studies that back that claim up. The court system is the wrong venue to do this in. As for who scheduled marijuan? Of course the FDA did. Congress has instilled that power into them. And I hope Ashcroft comes in and yanks every single licsence for each Doctor that prescribes marijuana. You really might want to look into taking a Government 101 class. I respect your opinion, but you don't seem to know how the law works.

I know how the law works. Someone challenged the federal policy in court. This makes it the judicial system's responsibilty to determine the constitionality of the law.

And no, it doesn't make me upset that California is challenging the federal government in this case. Regardless of the law, they're in the right. Sometimes federal law needs to be challenged.

If Alabama wanted to resegregate the schools, they could sure try. The difference in the two cases is that segregation is wrong.

What else is California's recourse? Are they going to talk to my congressman or senators on my behalf? No, they don't represent California. The state is just trying to establish its rights.

There is nothing unconstitutional about the prohibition of marijuana. I don't know why people think there is. This law has already been challenge and the u.s. supreme court unanimously decided that you can NOT use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The 9th district court completely disregarded the supreme court. You say... "Regardless of the law, they're in the right". I can't even begin to start on that phrase. You just said disregard the law, and do what you think is right. In America, your opinion doesn't matter. That's why we have laws. I am in disbelief that we have citizens of this country that would disregard the law because they feel other wise. The U.S. Supreme court has already spoken. If you don't like the law, then legislate new laws.

Calm down. Maybe you should read what the verdict was and not what you think it was. The 9th circuit simply said the Federal government can't revoke prescription rights from a doctor that advises a patient that MJ may provide an option for pain or other medical treatment. This is a speech issue plain and simple. You can't tell people what they can and can't say, that's what the government was trying to do. Unless the government can prove the doctor supplied the MJ then they can't claim consipiricy to violate federal drug laws. Frankly if they had upheld this rule we would all be forfieting free speech rights.

 

[tcsenter]

There is nothing unconstitutional about the prohibition of marijuana. I don't know why people think there is. This law has already been challenge and the u.s. supreme court unanimously decided that you can NOT use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The 9th district court completely disregarded the supreme court. You say... "Regardless of the law, they're in the right".

The decision was not about marijuana. The decision was about the government's right to regulate the communication between a doctor and patient.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

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...

I was going to respond against the Ashcroft bashing, but I think TS has said it all.

 

[Nitemare]

Isn't this the same court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

This is why there needs to be term limits on the judicial branch. Who appointed these lunatics anyways?

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Isn't this the same court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

This is why there needs to be term limits on the judicial branch. Who appointed these lunatics anyways?

I think it is the same court, I could be wrong though.

Marijuana should not be made legal by any means, except for medical use where it has been PROVEN to aid people. If we legalized it across the board, we'd have an army of hippies lighting up in restaraunts and we'd be in an even worse situation of 2nd-hand smoking than we are right now. I can see it now - little Timmy gets addicted to weed after eating at his local diner, now he's smoking a gateway drug at age 11.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

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

Hey! Don't tun this into a gun thread. Your statement has been DESTROYED by the facts mant times....

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Isn't this the same court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

This is why there needs to be term limits on the judicial branch. Who appointed these lunatics anyways?

Your favor for something does not mean people who oppose that something based on the constitution are nuts.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

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

Hey! Don't tun this into a gun thread. Your statement has been DESTROYED by the facts mant times....

oh you mean like the fact that most gun owners are part of well regulated militias?


sorry, you lose.


more and more places are voting to legalize marijana, a bit supportive of the poll numbers. the only people who benifit from the anti pot laws are the ones running prisons. more non violent criminals to take care of imagine if we had prohibition and put away people for drinking wine. what good would that do for society. its pointless.

and ashcroft, you can't expect a staunch conservative like him to see reason. he's still reeling over the trauma suffered from exposure to the boobie of justice statue.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Isn't this the same court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

This is why there needs to be term limits on the judicial branch. Who appointed these lunatics anyways?

Your favor for something does not mean people who oppose that something based on the constitution are nuts.

A Liberal base a judgement on the literal meaning of the Constitution?!
:disgust::Q

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

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...

The Justice Department is hardly an unbiased enforcer of federal laws. They interpret laws to suit their purposes and agendas just like politicians do (after all, the AG is appointed by the political machines). Why did GWB pick Ashcroft over somebody else? Because Ashcroft has a non-mainstream agenda, one closely aligned with non-mainstream, radical Christian "values", and somebody who is favored by the extreme right-wing element of the Republican party.

Ashcroft and Justice have the power to look the other way or at least soften his uber-federal-authoritarian stance. Don't go along with that crap that he must defend the laws of this country to the death. Look at traffic cops. They pull you over for offenses but they don't always ticket you, even if you did indeed break the law. Interpretative. Heck, a bunch of cops can bust into a party where people are smoking weed and not hit them with drug law offenses. They usually don't, but they can and they have. Look at the IRS. They aren't Congress or the Supreme Court, yet they interpret tax law and enforce their decisions. They aren't unbiased either.

All the social conservatives are "worried" about legalisation, but again the 9th Circuit only touched upon doctor-patient confidentiality. That's basically it. Now why are the "potheads" dragged into this? Because our federal government is so hysterically obsessed with their propagandist religious-wrong moral mission called The War on Drugs that anything that remotely damages the ego of the Anti-Adults-Can-Make-Their-Own-Choices faction throws them into fits. The potheads are the scapegoats.

And please don't use the blanket term "liberals": These damn "liberals", etc. I'm a social liberal and an economic conservative. "Liberals" who want drug law reform aren't necessarily welfare-collecting, lay-about do-nothings. Some of us "liberals" are successful professionals who are demanding reason from our federal government. Notice how financier George Soros is throwing his money into the ring against The War? Do you think he's in it so he can smoke dope?

 

[Tominator]

Part of the definition of a Liberal is they always think everyone is equally evil so it's ok to be evil.

I cannot for the life of me see how one can be a Social Liberal and an Economic Conservative.

Social Liberals need to tax the Economic Conservative or they would have zero money. They could not forward their agenda.

Ecomomic Conservatives are for standing on ones own two feet with minimal involvement by government.

Thos two basic philosphys are so opposed they are like fire and water!

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Marijuana should not be made legal by any means, except for medical use where it has been PROVEN to aid people. If we legalized it across the board, we'd have an army of hippies lighting up in restaraunts and we'd be in an even worse situation of 2nd-hand smoking than we are right now. I can see it now - little Timmy gets addicted to weed after eating at his local diner, now he's smoking a gateway drug at age 11.

WOW!...I don't even know where to start on this one.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Isn't this the same court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Yep, and they were correct in that case, too.

Originally posted by: Cfour
I can see it now - little Timmy gets addicted to weed after eating at his local diner, now he's smoking a gateway drug at age 11.

Thank you for your expert opinion, Doctor. I assume you are qualified to comment with at least as much medical expertise as John ASScroft. :disgust:

 

[glenn1]

Ecomomic Conservatives are for standing on ones own two feet with minimal involvement by government.

That is, minimal involvement by the government unless the person doing the standing just smoked a joint beforehand. Then it's okay for the government to stop being minimally involved and start busting balls.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Isn't this the same court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Yep, and they were correct in that case, too.

Originally posted by: Cfour
I can see it now - little Timmy gets addicted to weed after eating at his local diner, now he's smoking a gateway drug at age 11.

Thank you for your expert opinion, Doctor. I assume you are qualified to comment with at least as much medical expertise as John ASScroft. :disgust:

Typical Liberal. Call names with little substance. Ignore the facts to further you agenda. Out of context quotes. Will it ever end?

 

[0roo0roo]

Typical Liberal. Call names with little substance. Ignore the facts to further you agenda. Out of context quotes. Will it ever end?

which would make ann coulter and rush limbaugh typical liberals.

whats a conservative? someone who knows whats right and wrong in a black and white sorta way based on their religion. kinda like the taliban. u have the freedom to be like us, think like us, or else well.. your evil


pragmatism is kinda incompatible with such dogmatic thinking. best ruin some lives with prison over non violent crimes involving less then harmful drugs ah yes.

 

[Tominator]

Bud, you talk in circles and THEY are oblong!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Supreme Court ruling to refuse the revokation of any doctor's license for prescribing marajuana for any reason at all is just fscking stupid. :|

nik
P.S. My coworker came in today totally wasted. He brags about it. He couldn't do his job, or concentrate on a single conversation for that matter. Fscking embarrassing as a representative of the company. I wish they'd nail that idiot.