Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Subject: The Great Ganga Debate Author: Anthony [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 07:01:15 05/15/01 Tue Well, the fight for the legalization of marijuana took a blow this week, as the Supreme Court ruled against medical use of the plant. Check this out: High Court Says No Medical Marijuana Exception Photos By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a defeat for the medical marijuana movement, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Monday that California cannabis clubs may not legally distribute marijuana as a ``medical necessity'' for seriously ill patients. The nation's highest court unanimously refused to carve out a ``medical necessity'' exception from the federal law that prohibits the distribution of marijuana as an illegal drug. The closely watched case marked a watershed for the U.S. medical marijuana movement, which has been mired in legal battles since California in 1996 approved the nation's first initiative legalizing medicinal use of the drug. The case pitted the cannabis clubs, which say marijuana should be used to alleviate pain and suffering for illnesses such as AIDS (news - web sites), cancer and glaucoma, against the U.S. government, which had warned against creation of ``marijuana pharmacies.'' Medical marijuana proponents bitterly denounced the ruling, saying the justices showed no compassion for tens of thousands of seriously ill and dying patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) described the ruling as a victory for U.S. drug enforcement laws and said it clearly ''reaffirms the federal government's preeminent role in regulating controlled substances.'' Saying the case raised ``significant questions'' about the government's ability to enforce the nation's drug laws, Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) wrote for the court that federal law classified marijuana as a controlled substance. He said the law only provided one exception -- government-approved research projects. CONGRESS: NO MARIJUANA MEDICAL BENEFITS ``It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,'' he wrote in the 15-page ruling. Thomas said a U.S. appeals court had been wrong in ruling that marijuana clubs in California may distribute the drug to those seriously ill patients who prove cannabis was medically necessary. The California initiative allowed seriously ill patients to use marijuana for pain relief as long as they have a doctor's recommendation. Similar measures have been adopted in a number of other states. Joining Thomas in the opinion were Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites). The five make up the court's conservative majority. Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), joined by the Justices David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites), issued a separate opinion concurring in the judgement. They are among the court's more moderate-liberal members. Photos Reuters Photo Stevens emphasized the ruling was narrow, only applying to the clubs as distributors of marijuana to their members. ``Most notably, whether the (medical necessity) defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented here,'' he said. Stevens said California voters decided seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution under state laws for cultivating and possessing marijuana if the patient's doctor recommends it for treatment. ``This case does not call upon the court to deprive all such patients of the benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution,'' he said. Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) did not participate in the ruling. His brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, initially presided over the dispute. CANADA ALLOWS MEDICAL MARIJUANA While the U.S. government argued against the use of medical marijuana, Canada last month said it plans to make it easier to possess and cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. In Los Angeles, Bill Zimmerman, director of a group called Americans for Medical Rights, which sponsored the initiative, said ``tens of thousands of seriously ill Americans are going to be shaken by today's news.'' ``It is appalling to see the insensitivity of our government in the face of so much real human suffering,'' he said. Robert Raich, an attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the club at issue in the ruling, called the decision a ``travesty of justice.'' He compared it to another ``wrongly decided case,'' the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott ruling which upheld slavery in the South before the Civil War. In Washington, Kevin Zeese of the group Common Sense for Drug Policy, predicted the federal government will have trouble enforcing the drug laws before juries. ``The federal government is likely to lose when they try to enforce this decision.'' [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: The Great Ganga Debate Author: Anthony [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:12:52 05/15/01 Tue The American Government is rediculous. When are our rulers going to stop baby-sitting us? There is this moral majority that is still in power that bans drug use for some pseudo-religious reasons. They cry and cry about "seperation of church and state" and then decry drug use as "immoral"... I know that there is the arguement that there can be morality without religion, but look at how our government throws the God (the Christian God) into things...oaths that mention God, presidential speeches that include God, God this and God that...I realize that these days they assure us that they don't really refer just to the Christian God, but still, I feel like there is this undercurrent of religious zealotry to this whole drug question. Let people do what they want to do to themselves. Let us have control of our lives and our bodies. Let us have abortions, drugs, and the right to end our lives if and when they become unbearable. THAT'S freedom. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: The Great Ganga Debate Author: Zisel ben [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:27:09 05/15/01 Tue Very nice. Good stuff, Anthony. Keep on rockin' the free world. :) [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: The Great Ganga Debate Author: icky-icky [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:55:50 05/16/01 Wed Anthony, I do not feel this is as such a broad religious topic as you might have made it seem. While I do think there are people that believe morality should be involved, I do not believe that is the reason the Gov't maintains its policies. I think it is merely because the majority of people do not understand how dangerous marajauna is not, so the feds perpetuate the failed war on drugs. Not to mention that it is hard to stop a project that is so involved as the drug war, financial and politically at least. I think no one wants to admit they are wrong. Look how long prohibition lasted, and the only reason that was repealled was because of the depression. I think it is going to take a few more years of the failed war and urban blight before someone ends this madness. There will come a day when no other options are seen, the public sees the truth on harmfullness, and society has exhausted itself trying to end it, that there will no longer be the threat of poltitical suicide for deciding to end the drug war, and it will happen... [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: The Great Ganga Debate Author: Anthony [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:47:34 05/16/01 Wed Okay, I see your point. Good points, actually. I agree. Now, where's my bong? Should I use Wesley Pipes or Billy Bong Thorton? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]