Supreme Court to weigh medical marijuana laws

I remember Peter McWilliams. He's hard to forget.

I guess I've looked into enough of this to form an opinion by now. I have mine, you keep yours.

Those handy-dandy marinol pills that they say work just like smoking don't. Because it is injested through the stomach and gets filtered through the liver, they don't have the same effect as a partial dose of a joint which does not get filtered in the lung and is put directly in the bloodstream.

I have never had to use MJ medically, nor have I ever had cancer, but from everybody I've seen on chemo, it looks like nausea is a pretty big factor. How are you going to get any good from a pill that gets vomited right back up as soon as it hits the stomach? Lungs don't vomit. A cough can only expel so much.

I think what we have in this debate is a couple of hard questions. First, medical or not, how much are you willing to let the government dictate what you do with your body? Where does the government find this power in the Constitution (I don't recall seeing it in Art. 1, sect 8 or 9)?

Secondly, if your grandmother or you were dying of cancer and could even recieve a psychological benefit from the drug ie: it made them think they felt better, would you still oppose the use of the drug?

This topic is so old and worn out. Some people see this as a cultural thing. There are plenty of drugs out there much worse than MJ. Ever look up ritalin or adderol in the PDR? That's not just legal, it is heavily pushed on children. It too is a recreational drug.

Ah- the recreational drug arguement! I like that one. Like Viagra isn't? So if we must ban MJ because it is recreational, are we also going to ban all the other prescription recreational drugs? What about the OTC drugs people use for recreation?

There is no real coherant, cogent arguement for the position that MJ should be illegal. There is no constitutional basis for the action. After working in LE for a while, I noticed that I never booked in a man for beating his wife and kids while stoned.

I have an opinion, but in this argument, opinions are all that matter because facts don't support the current policy.

Secondly,
 
Here's the way I see it, as should everyone that believes in our Rights:

The government has NO RIGHT to tell us how we are to live, what we should smoke, eat, inject, or dip.

The only thing that the government can do is punish you when you do something stupid while on the stuff (driving, assaults, etc..). Until that time, the people should be free to do whatever they want until they step on someone's freedoms (see the () above).

Drugs were around, and were taken, when our ForeFathers wrote the Constitution and the BoR's. If they felt that the government had the "right" to make them illegal, they would have put it into the documents that they were writing at that time.

Wayne

*and no, I don't use.
 
My name is Sgt. Friday. You may remember me in such classic television programs and movies as "Dragnet" and "Rambone".

If you smoke, ingest or utilize Marajewana as a colonic, you will stuff your baby in a submariners sandwich, microwave little Timmy, and eat him whole. You will then jump off a cliff while screaming "I am the Walrus I am the Eggman Kukukachoo"

Smoking a "dooby" never did anybody any good. In fact it does a lot of people a lot of harm.

Side effects of Cannibalus use include: rapid growth of beatnik type facial hair and random spewing of nonsensical statements such as: "Nixon is a crook" and "War is bad."


This message has been sponsored by the National Christian Mandatory Morality Board of America
 
Those handy-dandy marinol pills that they say work just like smoking don't.
Click to expand...



Not to mention the fact Marinol is extreamly expensive. Thirty legally obtained 2.5mg pills [the smallest dosage] is about $140.00. In fact,British physicians have given up on prescribing Marinol;because of its cost vs effects mostly. And are now perscribing a liquid synthetic THC based chemical that you place in your eye a few drops at a time just like regular eye drops. But,the new liquid is cheaper to manufacture and is far more effective.
 
Last edited:
Marijuana for nausea is pretty well documented. I would not think a lung cancer patient should be taking hits off a steamroller. Having many different ways to administer any drug is a good thing. One of the ways that is catching on is skin patches and gels.

We found both marijuana smoking and THC capsules to be effective anti-emetics. We found an approximate 23 percent higher success rate among those patients administered THC capsules. We found no significant differences in success rates by age group. We found that the major reason for smoking failure was smoking intolerance; while the major reason for THC capsule failure was nausea and vomiting so severe that patient could not retain the capsule.
Click to expand...

The problem I have with the smoked product is what is a dose. 1 gram of pauls stuff does not equal 1 gram of jim's stuff. The drug companies could have a smokeable product for those who need it in probably a month, that has x mg of active ingriedent in y grams.

Because it is injested through the stomach and gets filtered through the liver, they don't have the same effect as a partial dose of a joint which does not get filtered in the lung and is put directly in the bloodstream.
Click to expand...

Basic anatomy the stomach acid could destroy the active ingriedients, test for blood level of THC, use an enteric coated pill so the pill passes into the intestines to be absorbed. The stomach passes it's contents to the intestines, and they are absorbed in the bloodstream, then the liver can filter it out, just like the lungs pass thc to the bloodstream. Use drops like 70-101 said if pills don't work, find an injectable form also.

Secondly, if your grandmother or you were dying of cancer and could even recieve a psychological benefit from the drug ie: it made them think they felt better, would you still oppose the use of the drug?
Click to expand...

I don't oppose the drug I think bad science is bad science. I think the government trying to get a patient who is has extreme naseau to swallow pills is the government's way to try to sabotage the tests. Plenty of diabetic children check their blood and inject themselves with insulin.

Once again I do not support the government's interference into people's lives. At an anti-drug rally in HS, a speaker said there are 400 some chemicals in marijuana, and we only know what 9 do to the human body, we know nothing about what the others do, I jumped up and said they make me feel da%* good!! :D
 
Dan, I bet your highschool outburst went over really well. :rolleyes:

Why tax marijuana? If we're taxing anything that'll generate revenue, let's tax books, computers, trees (both hemp and trees are both good for making paper), and hey, why not mushrooms too, even those that aren't particularly psychoactive (all foods are psychoactive to some degree, except maybe distilled water made in a clean room).

Just because guns, alcohol, and tobacco are (unconstitutionally) taxed doesn't mean we should start taxing everything in sight.

Cal, Goslash,...
Cal,
This whole legal structure comes off as a convenient fiction used to justify whatever agenda one is trying to pursue
Click to expand...
Give that man a cee-gar!
Click to expand...
Or a copy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s The Common Law. :) In fact, I like the first several chapters so much, here's a cite.

in particular,
A very common phenomenon, and one very familiar to the student of history, is this. The customs, beliefs, or needs of a primitive time establish a rule or a formula. In the course of centuries the custom, belief, or necessity disappears, but the rule remains. The reason which gave rise to the rule has been forgotten, and ingenious minds set themselves to inquire how it is to be accounted for. Some ground of policy is thought of, which seems to explain it and to reconcile it with the present state of things; and then the rule adapts itself to the new reasons which have been found for it, and enters on a new career. The old form receives a new content, and in time even the form modifies itself to fit the meaning which it has received. (lecture 1, page 5)
Click to expand...
Holmes Jr. also carefully treats the subject of "guilty property," which is relevant both to drugs in this thread and to firearms that have been used in a crime and are doomed to destruction. As well as being on the web, it's available from Dover for anyone who likes killing trees... though it's too bad we're not killing hemp instead. :cool:
 
Tyme:
Stumbled thru Lecture 1. Great read. Now I see where punishing inanimate objects is rooted. We are clearly kneedeep in the moral alignment of various stray threads of social control. Gives a great backdrop to some of the unfathomable (by logic that is) legal deliberations we hear everyday. Can't abandon the common law roots and the morality of their results , but many things don't seem to jive with contemporary social structure. Let's cast it all out and start from scratch. You up to the job? :eek:
 
No I was called down to a drug counselors office almost every 2 weeks for 2 years to talk about my "drug problem". I had strep throat once, was tired and put my head down in class, the teacher a recovering alcoholic started to berate me in front of class. Went home, dad took me to the Dr., came back in 2 days with my augmentin, Dr.s report and told my teacher what he could do, while I took my medication right in front of him. Before this outburst happened everybody thught I looked high all the time. One time I did come to school high, and everybody said why aren't you high today. I was a truck driver with a hazmat rating, and that means random drug testing. I did not drink, or do drugs for a long time. I have proved my ability to take opiates everyday for around 18 months almost everyday, then stop cold turkey. I admit the medication I take now is different and after my second back surgery I was planning on entering a detox facility. Hopefully in sept of '05 I will be able to.

The number of times I came to school after drinking or imbibing anything I can count on 2 hands.

The only thing that is not taxed in MI by at least an income tax is Food, from a grocery store. Premade, or ready to eat is taxed because of labor involved in cooking.

I do believe we need some revenue to buy the military stuff. I think are current system doesn't work well. My education after HS consists mainly of CAD/CAM, maching, metal forming, computer networking, and repair. I am a minor level history buff, and do believe that taxes and tariffes on goods was one of the main ways that was used to fund the government, if we tax tobacoo I see no reason not tax marijuana.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...

Somebody smarter than me need to figure it out, I am just trying to figure out a reason to wake up tommorrow.
 
Anyone remember "reefer Madness"...? Produced by Hearst in order to add to the hype about hemp by tying it in as the same plant as marijuana. The Marijuana Prohibtion Act of 1937? The med pot issue is simply industries and governments way of taking your eyes of the real issues.

It's absolutely luidicrous to be arguing over even the med aspects when the real reasons it is kept illegal have nothing to do whatsoever with it being a social drug.

No adult should be disallowed to use it when they literally LIVE with chronic pain. However, If someone wants to buy a fifth of Jack Daniels and slowly drink themselves to death. Nicotine users too.

So why is the gov so concerned that someone may smoke some marijauana to alleviate genuine chronic pain or naseau, cramps, muscle spasms, depression? Let alone allowing the adult public to....... GASP! Get comparitvely mildly "high"? Big Business sleeping in the same bed as big gov. As long as they can keep our eyes off the ball they'll continue to ignore what simple common sense tells any free thinker is pure hogwash.
 
Why This Affects Gun Owners

It affects gun owners because, in addition to the Raich case, the SCOTUS is also considering the Stewart case, in which the question is whether a homegrown machine gun for personal consumption is interstate commerce.

In both cases, the 9th has said that if it is not commerce, and it is not interstate, it is not interstate commerce.

You can read the Bush administration's cert petition in the Stewart case here:

http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf

If you just want to skip to the end, here is his conclusion:
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be held pending this Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Raich, No. 03-1454 (to be argued Nov. 29, 2004), and then disposed of as appropriate in light of the Court’s decision in that case.
Click to expand...

Anyone want to get to work spreading the good word about tearing up that old New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause in favor of an even older one?

Before that, another good discussion of the Raich case is here

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/watkins4.html

An excerpt:

The Commerce Clause, in pertinent part, provides that Congress has the authority "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." At the time of the Framing, commerce was understood as "ntercourse, exchange of one thing for another, interchange of anything; trade; traffick." (See Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (3d ed. 1765)). It was not understood to encompass local activities such as agriculture.

By permitting Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the Framers did not contemplate restrictions on cannabis or any other home-grown crop. Instead, they sought to create a great free-trade zone within the United States. Alexander Hamilton predicted that an "unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions." Madison noted that the main purpose of the Commerce Clause "was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from improper contributions levied on them by the latter." In other words, the Framers sought to remove internal trade barriers. A nation-wide free trade zone, almost all agreed, would permit the states to take advantage of division of labor and lessen tensions as goods freely crossed borders.

Lest anyone claim that the commerce power was a mechanism to interfere with local affairs, Hamilton specifically noted in Federalist No. 17 that the Commerce Clause would have no effect on "the administration of private justice . . . , the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature."
Click to expand...
 
If the Supremes rule against this lady, she should move to Vancouver, BC.

From a financial standpoint ONLY, Vancouver, BC has found that by allowing all MJ to be decriminalized and taxed they covered their construction costs from last year. The amount of money they recieved in taxes on MJ?

In EXCESS of three billion dollars.

The construction costs they are covering? All of the new construction from their getting the winter Olympics in 2010 (I think that date is correct).

So, aside from the fact that we keep one million inmates a year in federal prison at a AVERAGE cost of $30,000 per inmate per year (That's 30 Billion dollars a year, folks) for drug crimes, and all the people who could be transfered into fighting real crimes like murder, rape, etc, from the DEA, etc, there is the amount of money the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could collect.

I have seen estimates that it would EXCEED our federal budget by a factor of TWO. Not our deficit, the whole freakin' budget. All the money the federal government spends every year. Would that mean no more income taxes?

Also, having been misdiagnosed AND mismedicated by my doctor for two years, I feel that I would have been better off just smoking dope. WHY? Because at least I would be able to keep weight on and stop throwing up all the time. MY disease? I am one of the thirty percent of men who have IBS. There are six million Americans with this disease. I can't keep weight on, unless I go on a HIGH SUGAR diet. Which is really bad for me on several different fronts. I hate losing three to five pounds in one day when I don't eat correctly.

What would ALL OF YOU suggest I do? I hate doing any drugs, even the ones that keep my colon from dropping out of my @ss. I fear a colonostomy is in my future. That will really suck.
 
I have seen estimates that it would EXCEED our federal budget by a factor of TWO. Not our deficit, the whole freakin' budget.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. That would be over 4 trillion dollars. That's one heck of a huge pile o weed.
 
Boy, I hope the SCOTUS tees up the fedgov and slaps them home in a taxicab on this one - extremely interesting 10th amendment issue. Go, go Angel!
 
Wallew, this is the second time that you have stated that marijuana is legal and taxed in Vancouver. Both times you have mentioned the sum of 3 billion dollars in taxed revenue.

This is a little odd, because according to the website of the British Columbia Marijuana Party, marijuana is still illegal in British Columbia, as of today.

They are, however, expecting a vote on the subject on April 20th of this year.

Do note that this is a vote, it hasn't passed yet.

So, I would really like to see your links on this subject.

LawDog
 
I hope the SCOTUS tees up the fedgov and slaps them home in a taxicab on this one
Click to expand...

I hope so too, but if they accept the idea that the interstate commerce clause is there to ensure a nationwide free trade zone, not a nationwide federal regulatory zone, they will pull the rug from under most of the federal structure as it exists today.

Somehow, I don't see that happening. The decisions will be in line with the New Deal reasoning of Wickard v Filburn, unfortunately. :(
 
I heard that they would rule on Raich by summer. They have apparently not decided whether or not to hear Stewart. The Bush administration is asking for an expansive, New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause in Raich, and is asking that Stewart be decided "in light of that decision." The Ninth Circuit are the strict constructionists in the story.

It's really quite amusing to a guy like me, who has long warned my drug warrior friends that ignoring the Constitution to prosecute the drug war was bad mojo. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top