Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Ruling would determine whether federal drug ban trumps state laws on use

Denver Post
Originally published May 29, 2005

DENVER - Robert Melamede's guidelines for better living go something like this: Eat right, exercise and smoke a little marijuana.

The biology department chairman at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs is among the state's 625 registered legal users of marijuana for medical reasons. He says it eases the pain of his spinal arthritis.

Melamede can't imagine living without it. However, his fate and that of legal users in 10 other states could be affected by a U.S. Supreme Court case in California that will determine whether a federal ban on the drug trumps state laws allowing medical marijuana.

The decision - expected in the next month - may redefine the limits of congressional power under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Either way, the decision is expected to revive the debate about the medicinal legitimacy of marijuana use and the social implications of legalizing what law enforcement officials call a "gateway" drug, which may lead to harder drugs.

In Colorado, federal law enforcement authorities said the decision would determine whether they could prosecute medical marijuana producers.

Bill Weinman, a federal Drug Enforcement Administration supervisor based in Denver, called medical marijuana a ploy by those who want to legalize the drug. He said his agency does not target sick and dying people but carefully evaluates whether growers are trafficking in the drug.

"This whole medical marijuana thing is a scam," Weinman said. "You don't smoke your medicine."

The question before the court is whether the Controlled Substances Act, a comprehensive 1970 federal law regulating a broad range of drugs including marijuana, exceeds Congress' power to regulate commerce.

Government lawyers argue that homegrown medical marijuana would affect a $10.5 billion illicit market.

Erik Neusch, a lawyer who wrote a law journal article on the constitutional issues raised by medical marijuana laws, said that during the past decade, the Supreme Court has rendered several decisions that have deferred to states' rights.

"What will be interesting is to see whether the Supreme Court continues on this path of broadening states' rights," he said.

"If they were internally consistent, they would strike down the federal government's attempts to prosecute medical marijuana use in the states," Neusch said. "But I don't think that's going to happen."

If the decision favors states' rights, more states probably will pass measures allowing medical marijuana use, said K.K. DuVivier, an associate law professor at the University of Denver.

"There has been [a movement] since the 1980s," she said. "People are trying to get around" federal law.

However, she predicted that if the decision were to favor federal enforcement of a marijuana ban, enforcement would vary locally.

"If local agencies say they're not going to put any funding into it and they make it a lower priority, the federal government will come in occasionally to make raids, but they won't have the presence to really enforce it," DuVivier said.

In 2000, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment 20, legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana for those who get a doctor's approval and register with the state. In addition to Colorado, states with some form of legalized marijuana use include Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Melamede suffers from ankylosing spondylitis, a painful, progressive, rheumatic disease that mainly affects the spine but can also affect other joints, tendons and ligaments.

Melamede is hopeful that a favorable decision by the Supreme Court would encourage doctors to be more liberal about prescribing marijuana.

Um, the Civil War ended when, about 150 years ago? Federal law > state law. Marijuana is illegal and druggies get sent to prison to meet Bubba. In other news, the Supreme Court has nothing better to do but declare itself Captain of the Obvious.  ::)

Weinman put it best here. Medicine is not supposed to be smoked. There are legal alternatives to marijuana, all types of painkillers that get the job done better. Medicinal marijuana is just a scam.

Ahhhhhh, I always forget. ?Marijuana is worse than alcohol because it's a "gateway" drug!

The only way marijuana is a gateway drug is because it gets people started on obtaining ILLEGAL drugs. People are going to smoke pot regardless of what the law says... making it illegal is putting ?them in a situation where someone can say "Hey, while you're here, how about you try some of this heroin?"

marijuana is legal in some countries, heroin is not

Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy suffer from constant vomiting. Marijuana suppresses vomiting and acts as a depressant to relax muscles/nerves.

No one who's in such great pain should be denied alleviation.

Uh huh?  I'm aware of that... Marijuana should be legal in every country.  Maybe you misunderstood my post.  The only way marijuana is a "gateway" drug would be if it is illegal, because it forces people to seek out dealers who might also be pushing more harmful drugs (like heroin), or have conncections to people that do sell it.

okay, I missunderstoof the gateway thing. I agree with you.

nice logic, unfortunately it doesnt make sense in the bigger picture, why do people seek out marijuana since its the next step down for smoking tobacco...smoking tobacco is legal and it doesnt stop people buying marijuana illegally from dealers...

they should keep it banned, i actually agree with walk for once...plenty of alternative medicines out there that you can use to suppress pain for arthritis

Maybe there is, but not as effective (and less harming to the rest of the body) the softdrugs can be (you don't have to smoke it you know..). Unless you've know what it is to live with pain you can't judge about medicines! I'm only 28 years old and already immune for certain medicines...there isn't much to choose from anymore (which doesn't lead to stomach problems and such) and with my "luck" i still have 50 years to go...maybe in the end it's also the only solution for me...and if i was religious i would thank god for being born in a country who condones the use of softdrugs.

Of course it helps - it makes u as a high as a kite! Drinking about 15 pints would also 'numb' the pain but it isn't exactly a good idea either!

I have no problem with people smoking it (providing they ain't going to be driving and they are not around those that don't want to inhale it) but its those that try and justify it that annoy me

If u want to do it then by all means go for it- but don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us by claiming its healthy!

I know most of you might want to think that the decision of the Supreme Court will depend on whether they like Marijuana or not.  However, this decision actually has much bigger implications than whether someone with cancer can grow their own weed.  Here is a quick summary of the problem:

The current power of the Federal Government has little to do with the Civil War, and far more to do with the New Deal Era.  During the New Deal FDR passed a series of legislation to deal with the depression.  The Supeme Court struck most of this legislation down based on ecnomoc liberties in the Constitution (A famous case known as Lochner v. New York).  This is when FDR had brought forward his famous Court packing scheme.  All of the sudden the Court changed its stride and decided to start upholding New Deal legislation.  , It was called the "change in time which saved nine" (on a side note, if anyone was watching the recent debates about judges, many of the democrats' opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was based on a speech she gave that cast favorable light on the Lochner era.  Of course there was a lot of merit to her speech, but that is for a different argument).  Anyway, in a famous footnote (4) to an opinion post-Lochner, known as Carolene Products, the SUpreme Court said that they would start to give only rational basis scrutiny to Congressional Legiuslation dealing with congressional powers.  However, in regards to cases involving individual rights they would give sctrict scrutiny (in this individual rights were not the economic rights used to strike down legislation in the Lochner era (such as the freedom to contract). 

Anyway, in the post-Lochner era the Supreme Court basically upheld every congressional law where the Federal government's power was challenged under the commerce clause.  If you look at the power "power to regulate interstate commerce" what comes to mind?  Probably not someone growing weed for his own consumption.  However, there is this weird case that is on the books from shortly after the Lochner Era that is called Wickard v. Filburn.  In summary, this case involved someone that was growing wheat on his farm for his own consumption, and to feed to his cattle.  There was a law that regulated the amount of wheat any farmer could grow.  He claimed that his use was solely intrastate.  However, the court claimed that the aggregate effect of every farmer doing what Wickard was doing would have a substantial effect on the regulation and interstate commerce.  To me, Wickard v. Filburn is one of the worst reasoned cases in SC history.  However, it sits on the books as precedent.  It will be interesting to see whether the Court overturns this case.  In recent years the court made to rulings that struck down federal legislation dealing with the commerce clause.  Since this hadnt been done for quite some time, many criticized the court.  It does, however, show that the court realizes how ridiculous its commerce clause jurisprudence is.

The problem with this case is that there is a lot of Federal legislation that is contingent on a favorable ruling by the court for the Federal government.  It will be extremely hard for the court to back track from its commerce clause jurisprudence without striking out a lot of modern popular legislation.  In addition, this is another one of those cases where people screw up the agendas of the conservatives and the liberals.  Many argue that liberals want the law upheld and that conservatives want it struck down.  However, I think liberals would rather have this law struck down and have the federal government maintain its power in the area of interestate commerce.

To me, that is why this case is interesting and not because it deals with Marijuana.

costum medicines...now THAT'S healthy! : ok:

and like i said before...smoking isn't the only way you can consume this. Currently we have 5 plants in our garden (don't ask me why..it wasn't my idea) i really got scared when 1 of my cats started eating/licking from the leaves, i got him out of the garden and directly phoned my mom (to question whether i had to do something (have him vomit or something)) she looked it up in a medical book (which doctors use also) and there this was written (roughly translated): cannabis, can be used for blatter- and kidneyproblems also against fatique (and some other things)....my cat has these illnesses (failing kidneys, blatterstones and is from time to time very tired also has thicker blood) he's on several medications and special dietfood...and isn't it ironic that he is the only one of the cats who eats of these plants?

You can't deny the healing powers of plants...approved medications are based on them! Just because so many ppl abuse it doesn't mean you have the right to deny it's healing powers to the ppl who really need it!

Ok, I'm not sure about the medicinal value of marijuana, but why should it be illegal for recreational use as well (and the people who need it for their health can go ahead)?

I don't understand how someone can say "Marijuana should be illegal" and not say "Alcohol should be illegal", considering it is the more harmful of the two drugs.  Of course, no one would do that because it is stupid to suggest alcohol should be illegal.  Not only does everyone drink it, but when prohibition was tried, people partied even more.  Just because something isn't 100% good for you, doesn't mean it should be illegal.  Fast food is more harmful than marijuana (and it doesn't have the medicinal benefits), but its not illegal. 

i sympathise with your problem but marijuana has many side effects over and above the respiratory problems that smokers have...problems with memory, perception, loss of coordination, increased heart rate, delinquent behaviour, aggression, lower achievement, paranoia, adverse changes to the reproductive organs and if youre pregnant then there is strong evidence that babies are born smaller with poor motor coordination...im sure there are a few other side effects that I havent mentioned...so if cocaine had some sort of healing power then you would say the same for that wouldnt you?...no thanks, imo its should stay a banned substance

and I have have secondary experience with someone who was in severe pain from back problems and also my ex who was a depressive...and yes im against anti-depressants too

Or Rush Limbaugh.

delinquent behaviour?  aggression?  lower achievement?

I've smoked weed since grade 10 and I have never had problems in school as a result.  Never had problems with the law.  Rarely in fights, never in ones that I start.  Most of my friends are the same.  Do you not think that those behaviours might LEAD someone to smoke weed instead of being a RESULT of someone smoking weed?  Those who are raised poorly or have low self esteem may start to smoke weed (excessively), but that's not marijuana's fault.  There are people who can use it responsibly with the health consequences being very small.  Its the same as alcoholics, except marijuana is FAR less addictve.

"if you're pregnant"?  Of course smoking has negative effects on a baby, that's why responsible parents will stop smoking when they are pregnant.

Like I mentioned in my last post, a poor diet (i.e. eating fast food) has much more serious effects on a person's health than smoking a joint, but fast food is not illegal?  Some people can eat responsibly and occasionally have a burger and fries, while MOST of america decides to stuff their faces... yet you wouldn't even think of banning fast food.

Ahhh, but you're terrified that people might smoke an almost harmless plant, so you think it should be illegal.  Only problem is, people will smoke it regardless, so why not collect taxes on it and only sell weed that's been government approved?  Or does that make too much sense?

I remember seeing this Harvard trained doctor interviewed about medical pot.

His kid had cancer at age 11. He had horrible vomiting associated with the chemotherapy (if anybody has seen somebody go through this they know how horrible it is) and lost his appetite too. He wasn't really in favor of pot, but as a last resort and his sons pain, tried it. It curbed the naseua and they child began to eat again. His child still died, but (telling the story now as an old man-retired) he held to his experience with marijuana, believing that there was good things to come out of it.

The 'gateway drug' or slippery slope argument falls flat to me since alcohol is such a worse drug and kills thousand every year. Nobody has ever OD'd on pot. But that is really a different topic.

I think if it is to be used to ease pain and helps then what is the big deal? Morhine is used for pain, and is much worse and addictive then weed.

People on here are going to argue that oxycotin is safer then pot!?!? Just because it's legal (for now)? It is one molecule away from heroin and people get strung out on that drug (look at poor ole Rush Limbaugh) all the time these days. That drug has made it's way into highschools were young kids are dying from it all the time.

Powerful pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are much more dangerous then pot ever will be.

So why all the fuss?

Is it really the social stigma of pot? Surely you jest? But that is the point isn't it? What is socially acceptable and what is not.

these side effects are well documented dude and you know it...just because you havent seen any difference doesnt mean another person hasnt...

i dont doubt that people from poor families are more prone to taking up drugs like marijuana but i doubt its the major reason...

personally i dont like the attitudes of the people ive known or seen who take marijuana...i find them intellectually lacking, prone to poor conversation and they are pretty much mind fucked,...ill tell you that most of the people i know or knew were a waste of time... although i doubt that everyone is like that

i dont care about fast food dude, i rarely eat it...if its banned i doubt i would shed a tear for these companies

almost harmless plant...apart from the side effects i mentioned above

and slc, i dont disagree with you that often but i think that powerful drugs the companies are foisting on kids are just another way to get them addicted...that means theyll buy their product day in day out for as long as it takes to "cure" them...does anyone remember the story a couple of years ago where a major drug company invented an illness so i could sell its newly patented drug?...theyll do anything to get you to buy their product...

and slc, i dont disagree with you that often but i think that powerful drugs the companies are foisting on kids are just another way to get them addicted...that means theyll buy their product day in day out for as long as it takes to "cure" them...does anyone remember the story a couple of years ago where a major drug company invented an illness so i could sell its newly patented drug?...theyll do anything to get you to buy their product...

You have confused me, because I don't remember talking about this..... :P

Although I do think the huge drug push in America (legal: pharmaceutical) is horrible.

Its funny - but when u talk to people that smoke they answer in the same way - 'my uncle smoked for 900 years and never got lung cancer'....

Well its not like I smoke everyday, I'm talking about responsible use.  "Potheads" may have the problems that I Q listed, but someone who smokes once a week/month won't (much like someone who drinks occasionally).

Cigarettes are highly addictive, marijuana is not.  Besides, tobacco is legal.  Making marijauan legal doesn't mean that YOU have to smoke it, or that it is 100% HEALTHY.  You're thinking seems to be "Marijuana is bad for you, it is the devil, ban it".  However this isn't stopping anyone from smoking it (and looking at the success of prohibition, there's a chance that MORE people may be using it).  So what good is it doing making it illegal?  I'm not saying ENCOURAGE people to smoke weed, but getting a criminal record for being found with some pot on you is stupid.

Also, America's tight-ass views on the subject prevent neighbouring countries from moving forward with legalizing marijuana... just to maintain good relations with the big bad.
 

Actually i said


People can smoke it all they want, my problem is when people claim it has medical VALUE, that it can help people - this is just untrue

Even if it did have medical value - are any of u in need of its 'medical' properties? The medical thing is just to disguise what ur really doing - taking a drug because u want to get high.

Even if it was proved that it helped people in terrible pain - how is that an argument for Joe Bloggs to take it for recreational use?

By all means use it (but don't drive or handle firearms) but DON'T justify it on medical grounds which don't apply to u - or anyone, just admit ur taking an illegal drug because u want to and are making a free choice in the face of warnings

Ok, I get where you are coming from.  I'm not saying that I should be allowed to smoke marijuana because it has medical value.  I'll admit when I smoke it, I'm doing it to get high.

What I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't have to justify their use by saying its for "medical purposes".  I disagree with you that marijuana has no medical value at all... I'm sure it truly helps some people.  However, if it was legal, you wouldn't need to debate whether or not it has medical value.  People who believe it does can go right ahead and smoke it.

People can smoke it all they want, my problem is when people claim it has medical VALUE, that it can help people - this is just untrue

There are so many drugs, legal by prescription, that claim to have medical value as well. Many of these claims are false. In fact, many (especially of the late) prove to cause more harm then good and eventually get pulled off the market.

If a drug decreases vomitting and increases appetite...does that not contain a value?

Define value.

But surely two wrongs don't make a right?

These drugs need to be removed to



Perhaps, but if it causes schizophrenia at the same time then probably not


Ah, i can't define medical value - but then thats not my role

That role falls to the doctors of this world, and a majority would agree marijuana has no proven medial value.

Governments don't stop its usage because they are moivated by 'evil', they do so because the nations doctors who advise them largely agree that it has no proven benefit and has the potential to be doing much harm

When marijuana is proven to be safe and of much benefit i will be delighted to see it legalised

But surely two wrongs don't make a right?

Who says it is wrong? The side effects of the vicadin a took after my surgerie(s) are far worse (and addictive) then pot. I would not take oxycotin if prescribed to me, I'd rather go with something weaker and take the pain, then risk being addicted to that shit.

The side effects of viagra have recently shown to cause BLINDNESS. OK, and really, besides getting some wood, what is the real medical value of viagra? I mean...c'mon. There is none.


Perhaps, but if it causes schizophrenia at the same time then probably not

Who says it causes that?

I'd agree if you said cocaine causes people to become nutty, sure. But pot?


Ah, i can't define medical value - but then thats not my role

Well the question was kind of retorical (spelling?). It was meant to mean that it is all relative. I certainly don't see viagra as a medical breakthrough drug. But I can get a boner pretty good at the ripe old age of 34. However in another 30 yrs I may regard it as a miracle.

Same for pot. Like that Harvard doctor, whose son died of cancer. He did not see any value in pot, until he saw his son suffering via chemotherapy. Then the drug held a medical value because  it eased his sons pain and he was able to eat again.


That role falls to the doctors of this world, and a majority would agree marijuana has no proven medial value.

Would they? How do we know?

When marijuana is proven to be safe and of much benefit i will be delighted to see it legalised

Alcohol is not safe, yet socially acceptable.

Many prescription drugs are not safe, without a doubt.

I just don't see the danger in pot, especially compared to other drugs already on the market, that are much more powerful, addictive and dangerous.

Marjuana may have it's dangers and making it legal would probably not be the best idea...although i would love to go in a shop and ask for 20 Marlboro Joints :smoking: thing is there are worse things out there that are legal alcohol for instance.  A lot of side effects can come from supposed safe drugs, a friend of my mum's had her child immunised with some regular injections [for a holiday or to protect against some illness i'm not sure] anyway now that boy is pretty much a vegetable, as long as there are worse things out there that are legal marjuana's legisation would not be the end of the world, but rather than legalise it they should ban alot of stuff that's already legal.  Fact is i can get marjuana whenever i want so making it legal makes no difference to me anyway, and if it does cause scizophrenia then i guess the less people that smoke it the better...i'm just not one of those people :smoking:

Son of a bitch.  When will this country ever learn?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050606/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana_13

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
 
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice     John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer,     HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice     Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice     Clarence Thomas.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General     John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

Just as I would have predicted it would go.  I would have been shcoked if it had gone the other way.  However, I wouldnt have expected Scalia to concur with the majority.  I was definately disappointed with his opinion.

Marijuana was originally banned back in the 1930's b/c the govt. claimed it caused "reefer maddness" and had a muderous effect on people smoking it.? Gotta love that whole prohibition time period...  ::)

And once again I'm so happy that i live in a country where it is allowed...even the docters can prescribe it to you and you can pick it up at a few Pharmacies. Home growing is also allowed (5 plants)...

Sure it's not going to be my first option of a painkiller but when i get immune for even more painkillers or when i have to take other medications to suppress sideaffects of the main medication then i might reconsider....hopefully for me it won't come this far.

If ppl really want this drug to be banned...then they should also start a crusade about banning Alcohol and Cigarettes.