DescentBB

While a number of S.C. decisions have been discussed, one that seems to have escape Bird's and Ferno's attention is the banning of medical marijuana. Even though a state's voters may have approved the use of mm, the high court has somehow established that the federal govt. has jurisdiction over this matter under the interstate commerce act even though no interstate commerce is involved. Secondly the courts labeling that marijuana a "dangerous" drug flies in the face of other dangerous drugs legally being prescribed by a doctor. So wtf is going on here?

woodchip wrote: So wtf is going on here?

It'll be a cold day in hell before a politician concerned at all with reelection will be seen as "soft on drugs".

woodchip wrote:While a number of .C. decisions have been discussed, one that seems to have escape Bird's and Ferno's attention is the banning of medical marijuana.

heh

it's the way it's been since the start of prohibition woodchip. there's a lot of reading to be had on it, google is great for it. i don't even need to point you to anywhere specific since you will read the same historical story on many sites - start googling on the subject and you'll soon find out all about it.

basically, in the 1930s they were able to make marijuana illegal by requiring everyone dealing with it to have special TAX STAMPS so they could supposedly track it's sales/purchases for tax purposes, since the revenue department was one of the only federal departments at the time that could enforce it's laws OVER the states (and tax laws were one of them). the revenue department then simply never issued the tax stamps to anybody - and since it was illegal to have marijuana without a special tax stamp, it effectively banned marijuana.

So that's the whole reasoning behind banning usage of marijuana, because the government doesnt get tax money for it??

"Secondly the courts labeling that marijuana a "dangerous" drug flies in the face..."

The courts didn't label cannabis "dangerous." It is labeled a "Schedule 1" narcotic by decree of both congress and the DEA. Therefore the courts can only view it as a dangerous narcotic with no medicinal value. If cannabis is changed to "Schedule 2," to courts can no longer call it "dangerous."

This is the main reason why I never get all huffy puffy when it comes to SCOTUS cannabis judgements. It's not the battle to fight. The battle is with the legislature.

Behemoth wrote:So that's the whole reasoning behind banning usage of marijuana, because the government doesnt get tax money for it??

the tax stamp thing was just a legal loophole they took advantage of to get what they wanted. without that loophole it was impossible to pass any federal laws, states had all the rights 'cept when it came to tax. banning marijuana didn't really have anything to do with tax (otherwise they would have been giving out the stamps) - it was just a convenient legal loophole they exploited to bypass states' rights.

the history books say the real reasons were:
jazz musician haters and just basic racists wanted marijuana banned so they could have a legal excuse for their moral crusade against "the devil music".
the petro-chemical industry & paper industry (and associated newsPAPERs) wanted marijuana gone because it was an ecconomic threat to both the petro-chemical industry's new "plastic" technology & the newspaper industry's paperpulp plantation investments.

all public scare anti-marijuana campaigns from the 1930s are traced to the industrys mentioned above - mostly the paper industry and associated newspaper tycoons (just before it was banned, marijuana emerged as a dangerous competitor to the woodpulp paper industry).

these days you can also add the pharmo-industry to the list of special interest groups that wants it to remain illegal.

So it's banning has nothing to do with the medicinal value of marijuana?

There are medical benefits in marijuana, but most of it is garbage you dont need. If you want the benefits you can take it in pill form. When you are sick do you eat a plant? No, you take the beneficial part of the plant and put it in pill form and ingest in that way.

Doc Wop is in the hizzy!

Top Wop wrote:There are medical benefits in marijuana, but most of it is garbage you dont need. If you want the benefits you can take it in pill form. When you are sick do you eat a plant? No, you take the beneficial part of the plant and put it in pill form and ingest in that way.

So are you saying we can get marijuana in pill form now?

Yeah, take three and call me when you get to Taco Bell.

I love it when they throw pot in the same sentence as heroin and crack. Love it, but I'll smoke, like I did last night, like I'll do in about three hours.

After seeing what pot did to my roommate's personality, I'm all for keeping it illegal. The world needs a collective increase in intelligence, not a decrease.

Top Gun wrote:After seeing what pot did to my roommate's personality, I'm all for keeping it illegal. The world needs a collective increase in intelligence, not a decrease.

don't be reactionary Top Gun, that's bad science. You should at least have a base theory of HOW (the process) your roommate's personality was changed.

also marijuana decreases traditional measurable intelligence while under it's influence. but if you believe that then you also have to believe that occasionally smoking pot actually increases your general intelligence by 5 IQ points - in other words pot smokers are on average 5 IQ points smarter than non pot smokers.
both were conclusions of that particular study (but the media generally only reported the decrease. hmmm... why do you suppose that is?).

Behemoth wrote:

Top Wop wrote:There are medical benefits in marijuana, but most of it is garbage you dont need. If you want the benefits you can take it in pill form. When you are sick do you eat a plant? No, you take the beneficial part of the plant and put it in pill form and ingest in that way.

So are you saying we can get marijuana in pill form now?

actually... yes.
it's called Marinol and it came out only a few years ago. it's a synthetic form of THC, the most famous active ingredient in Marijuana.

what is funny is that the pharmo-industry happily says that marijuana is dangerous, citing all their studys showing how it may have this and that long term damage.
yet Marinol, while being chemically the same, has no warnings for this supposedly horrible damage (look at the site).

they are basically saying marijuana is dangerous and you shouldn't take it (and they have an entire federal police force to keep you from taking it). unless they can patent and sell it, in which case it's considered to be a completely harmless wonder drug.

interesting no?

i've talked to a lot of honest medical marijuana users (that have tried Marinol), and they all say that while Marinol gives a similar effect to pure marijuana, pure marijuana works better than Marinol anyway.
also, Marinol is taken orally. in pill form like this it is really not too great at suppressing nausea and stimulating appetite (one of the many great things marijuana does) since you often just throw up the pills.
inhaled smoked (or vaporised) marijuana however works much faster, better, and you can't throw it up.

Juggernaut wrote:So it's banning has nothing to do with the medicinal value of marijuana?

well, as Vander said marijuana is a schedule-1 drug in america. this is a catagory supposedly reserved for the most dangerous of drugs with no possible medical use. For a drug to be in this catagory it is supposed to have absolutely no medicinal value. basically it's suppose to be the "pure evil" catagory.

here's the DEA's own page outlining the schedules:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm

erowid.com's version of the same:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law ... ched.shtml

the obvious glaring problem here is that marijuana's dangers are minimum, and it IS commonly used medicinally. the ultimate punch in the face of all reason is of course Marinol: a perfectly safe drug - chemically idential to marijuana. marijuana: the drug so "dangerous, and without medical use".

the DEA refuses to acknowledge marijuana's medical use. why do you think that is?


[edit: woo... good wiki article on Marinol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinol ]

I don't know about being reactionary, roid; I just formed an opinion based on my experiences with people who smoke pot. I don't put much faith in IQ values to begin with, and I definitely fail to see how a scientific study could conclude that smoking pot could affect one's value by a few points either way. Regardless, I do know that when my roommate smoked pot, I laughed my ass off at how bizarre he acted. Another kid I knew from school who smoked a lot (and who was kicked out after one semester for posession of drug paraphernalia as part of a drug bust) was the biggest dick I have ever met in my 18 years on this planet. These experiences have done nothing but reinforce my already solid conviction of never touching anything that would screw up my brain's chemistry. I don't need chemicals from some plant or fermented grains to change my state of mind; I'm perfectly happy with my own natural brand of craziness.

Top Wop wrote:There are medical benefits in marijuana, but most of it is garbage you dont need. If you want the benefits you can take it in pill form. When you are sick do you eat a plant? No, you take the beneficial part of the plant and put it in pill form and ingest in that way.

while paying big pharma a ton of cash.

Wow Top Wop they either have you trained very very well, or you own stock.

I'm sure all our ancestors endeavoured to put everything in pill form too so they could charge 100,000% profit on the ingredients.

Smoking anything is not good for you. But it sure is an extremely quick and efficient way of delivering a payload to you your blood steam.

Faster than injecting.

And pot does have many medical benefits, as well as a great protein and food source, paper products including fiber and cloth, as well as an incredible bio-fuel oil source.

Funny most of the very same industries that origionally brought the anti-pot bill to congress in the 1930's used paper, AND oil, (esp. the synthetics MANUFACTURERS). They didn't want a cheap renewable, non polluting, easily grown source of raw material available to EVERYONE!

Calm down my crazy Canadian friend, I never said that the pharmaceutical industry making a thousand dollar profit on a ten dollar ingredient was a good thing. I was merely stating a fact.

There are medical benefits in marijuana, but most of it is garbage you dont need. If you want the benefits you can take it in pill form. When you are sick do you eat a plant? No, you take the beneficial part of the plant and put it in pill form and ingest in that way.

Actually, you have not heard of one of the primary benefits: Curing stomach aches so that patients can eat. For these patients taking a pill is not an option since they cannot keep down any food because of their stomach. But by smoking or vaporizing, they can get the drug effects and thus be able to eat. Marijuana is amazingly good at helping stomach pain and allowing a sick patient to be able to consume food normally.

I don't need chemicals from some plant or fermented grains to change my state of mind; I'm perfectly happy with my own natural brand of craziness.

Good for you! Good policy. But it does have some medical value, as which it should no longer be classified Schedule 1. Unfortunately the Bush crew prefers to lie for political reasons.


Woodchip:

OF course I have been following this. Funny thing is that, in theory, republicans should be up in arms about this. You know, states rights and all. Unfortunately the republicans no longer stand for traditional 'conservative' values (e.g. smaller government, states rights, fiscal responsibility, etc.)

What happened to all the real republicans?

A part of the Republican party has been hijacked for all I know. But this does not escape the fact that the SC is legislating when they shouldn't be and decisions such as this should be left to congress. How is smoking pot unconstitutional? They dont have a right to dictate on such matters. They should interpret the constitution. THATS IT.

Top Wop wrote:How is smoking pot unconstitutional?

Wait... what?

Are you forgetting that the Supreme Court is given authority over all other courts in the country? And that one can appeal even further to an appellate court?

The SC did not find smoking pot to be unconstitution, they found CA's medical marijuana law to be unconstitutional based on the arcane logic of the interstate commerce act.

ah, interesting.
you should have said UNCONSTITUTIONAL earlier. you've definitely pricked up my ears.
can you expand on this "unconstitutional" issue woodchip?

woodchip wrote:The SC did not find smoking pot to be unconstitution, they found CA's medical marijuana law to be unconstitutional based on the arcane logic of the interstate commerce act.

Thus rather than letting the states or congress decide they rule (as though they were kings) that no one should smoke pot. Thats it.

Okay, now it's time to clear things up because the waters of discussion are getting muddied with lingo.

First of all, nothing was declared unconstitutional here. The Supreme Court declared that it is within the legal bounds for the DEA (a federal agency) to prosecute growers of medicinal marijuana, even if the state passed a law authorizing its production. There's no constitutionality being debated here.

This CNN Article wrote:But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

And in a 6-3 decision the court agreed that weed production does classify as interstate commerce because the nature of growing marijuana is for its distribution (I'm not agreeing with the decision, just presenting the argument's basis...). Therefore Congress has the full authority to, through the DEA, prosecute growers of medicinal marijuana.

(On a side note, I hate the term "medicinal marijuana". It's weed no matter how you look at it. The fact that one is growing it to diminish pain does not change the fact that it's marijuana, and that's how the narcotics laws are written. "If it's cannibis, it's illegal.")

The Supreme Court was given the following argument:
- People are growing weed.
- The primary intent of growing weed is 99.9% of the time to sell it, often across state lines.
- Congress has authority over all interstate commerce.
- Congress created the DEA which enforces drug laws.
- People in California were growing weed and the DEA raided their houses just like they would the facilities of any other marijuana producer.
- Allowing people to grow marijuana by virtue of declaring its medicinal intent would create a loophole that would make it harder for the DEA to find and eradicate production facilities before the weed hits the streets.

2/3 of the Court bought it. It's funny that O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented.

[edit] You know what else is funny? In this entire discussion nobody has linked to a single article about the ruling. [/edit]

If it's psychoactive Cannabis; it's beautiful, fragrant, healing herb .. Smoke it, vapourize it, cook it and eat it !

.. I'm Glad I don't live in South Carolina ~!