Back to Map

MAPTalk-Digest Tuesday, November 30 2004 Volume 04 : Number 216

001 Online poll alert...
    From: Rick Steeb <>
002 DFAF:'What's Right w/WOD'
    From: "D.H. Michon" <>
003 Re: MAP: Online poll alert...
    From: Rick Steeb <>
004 Re: MAP: Online poll alert...
    From: Thomas J Hillgardner <>
005 NDLEA Receives Fourth Certification From US
    From: Herb <>
006 US: Justices React Skeptically Medical - Marijuana Arguments
    From: Richard Lake <>
007 US: Editorial: Must the Ill Be Made to Suffer for Such Meager Gain?
    From: Richard Lake <>
008 US: States' Rights Defense Falters in Medical Marijuana Case
    From: Richard Lake <>
009 Add Louisiana to States with Legal MMJ?
    From: "SHeath(DPFFLorida)" <>


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: 001 Online poll alert...
From: Rick Steeb <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:26:53 -0800 (PST)

Drug Free America Foundation's own poll results, 29 November 2004
<http://www.dfaf.org/index.php>

Question: Marijuana is:
 * harmless:   42.3%
 * a viable medicine:   34.5%
 * an addictive drug / gateway drug:   11.9%
 * ten times more potent today than in the 60's:   3.6%
 * first step to drug addiction:   7.7% 

In a nation with thriving alcohol and tobacco industries, how bizarre
is it that the Supreme Court will decide whether Angel Raich can use
cannabis to save her life?  

------------------------------

Subj: 002 DFAF:'What's Right w/WOD'
From: "D.H. Michon" <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:03:00 -0800

http://www.dfaf.org/whatsright/index.php
The Drug-Free America Foundation (I didn't know William Bennett was an MD?) has produced this series of webpages to present it's view that the good far predominates the bad in the WOD. Forewarned is forearmed. (Don't these people ever cite sources?)
Dave
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/part5346.html

------------------------------

Subj: 003 Re: MAP: Online poll alert...
From: Rick Steeb <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:06:14 -0800 (PST)

As of just now, 1400PT, it's:
    * harmless:   46.6%
    * a viable medicine:   37.2%
    * an addictive drug / gateway drug:   8.1%
    * ten times more potent today than in the 60's:   2.4%
    * first step to drug addiction:   5.7%
247 individuals have responded to poll.

Enlightenment is hard to destroy with blatant falsehoods, but there's
little doubt they'll try!

- --- rainbow  wrote:

> They might use this information to step up their campaigns.  That is
> if they believe their own rhetoric.
> Tom
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Steeb <>
> Sent: Nov 29, 2004 11:26 AM
> To: Maptalk <>
> Subject: MAP: Online poll alert...
> 
> Drug Free America Foundation's own poll results, 29 November 2004
> <http://www.dfaf.org/index.php>
> 
> Question: Marijuana is:
>  * harmless:   42.3%
>  * a viable medicine:   34.5%
>  * an addictive drug / gateway drug:   11.9%
>  * ten times more potent today than in the 60's:   3.6%
>  * first step to drug addiction:   7.7% 
> 
> In a nation with thriving alcohol and tobacco industries, how bizarre
> is it that the Supreme Court will decide whether Angel Raich can use
> cannabis to save her life?  
> 
> 

------------------------------

Subj: 004 Re: MAP: Online poll alert...
From: Thomas J Hillgardner <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:23:40 -0800

IMHO (I took one year of survey research in undergrad), this poll is
designed to elicit the answer "harmless" and the users of this poll will
probably be using the results (as unscientific as any Internet poll is)
as evidence of how much work still needs to be done to educate us foolish
poll takers that marijuana is not harmless.  That is one of their great
strawmen: "The legalizers tell you that marijuana is harmless."  I NEVER
tell anyone this.  NOTHING is harmless.  Its a stupid argument to get
into.

Everyone should vote for "a viable medicine," which is a totally true
statement.

Thomas J. Hillgardner, Esq.
82-63 170th Street
Jamaica, New York 11432-2035
(718) 657-0606


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:06:14 -0800 (PST) Rick Steeb <>
writes:
> As of just now, 1400PT, it's:
>     * harmless:   46.6%
>     * a viable medicine:   37.2%
>     * an addictive drug / gateway drug:   8.1%
>     * ten times more potent today than in the 60's:   2.4%
>     * first step to drug addiction:   5.7%
> 247 individuals have responded to poll.
> 
> Enlightenment is hard to destroy with blatant falsehoods, but 
> there's
> little doubt they'll try!
> 
> --- rainbow  wrote:
> 
> > They might use this information to step up their campaigns.  That 
> is
> > if they believe their own rhetoric.
> > Tom
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Steeb <>
> > Sent: Nov 29, 2004 11:26 AM
> > To: Maptalk <>
> > Subject: MAP: Online poll alert...
> > 
> > Drug Free America Foundation's own poll results, 29 November 2004
> > <http://www.dfaf.org/index.php>
> > 
> > Question: Marijuana is:
> >  * harmless:   42.3%
> >  * a viable medicine:   34.5%
> >  * an addictive drug / gateway drug:   11.9%
> >  * ten times more potent today than in the 60's:   3.6%
> >  * first step to drug addiction:   7.7% 
> > 
> > In a nation with thriving alcohol and tobacco industries, how 
> bizarre
> > is it that the Supreme Court will decide whether Angel Raich can 
> use
> > cannabis to save her life?  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/part5364.html

------------------------------

Subj: 005 NDLEA Receives Fourth Certification From US
From: Herb <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:21:53 -0800

NDLEA Receives Fourth Certification From US

http://allafrica.com/stories/200411290459.html

------------------------------

Subj: 006 US: Justices React Skeptically Medical - Marijuana Arguments
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:11:42 -0500

Newshawk: Jane Marcus
Pubdate: Mon, 29 Nov 2004
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2004 San Jose Mercury News
Contact: 
Website: http://www.mercurynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390
Author: Jim Puzzanghera, Mercury News Washington Bureau
Note: MAP readers may find the web based comments on the hearing currently 
linked from the http://www.drugwarrant.com home page of interest.
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich (Angel Raich)

JUSTICES REACT SKEPTICALLY MEDICAL-MARIJUANA ARGUMENTS

WASHINGTON - Several U.S. Supreme Court justices reacted skeptically Monday 
to the legal arguments of two chronically ill California women seeking 
immunity from federal prosecution for smoking marijuana because state 
voters have approved its use for medical purposes.

The attorney for Angel Raich, 39, of Oakland and Diane Monson, of Butte 
County, argued that the federal government was violating the federal 
constitution in trying to prevent the two women from using marijuana 
prescribed by doctors, as allowed in California and 10 other states. The 
marijuana the women smoke to lessen severe chronic pain and avoid reactions 
from traditional drugs is grown only for their use and therefore is not an 
interstate commodity that the federal government can regulate, said their 
attorney, Randy Barnett.

But although several members of the court, particularly conservatives, feel 
strongly about preserving the rights of states, they and other justices 
appeared critical of Barnett's arguments that medical marijuana users 
should be immune from federal law that bans the drug as a harmful and 
addictive controlled substance.

Justice Antonin Scalia said it seemed logical that some of the estimated 
100,000 Californians who use medical marijuana would buy it in the illegal 
market, making it an economic commodity that Congress could regulate. And 
Justice Stephen Breyer said people who believe marijuana should be allowed 
for medicinal use -- a point of debate in the medical community -- should 
take their case to the federal Food and Drug Administration first.

"Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum," Breyer said.

The case has ramifications in 10 other states that allow marijuana use for 
medicinal purposes despite a federal ban on the drug.

Paul Clement, who argued the case for the federal government as the acting 
solicitor general, said allowing "any little island of lawful possession" 
of marijuana would undermine the intent of Congress to ban the drug's use. 

------------------------------

Subj: 007 US: Editorial: Must the Ill Be Made to Suffer for Such Meager Gain?
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:45:14 -0500

Newshawk: Please Write a LTE - See: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/
Pubdate: Tue, 30 Nov 2004
Source: USA Today (US)
Webpage: 
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-11-29-medicalmari
Copyright: 2004 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Contact: 
Website: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich (Angel Raich)

MUST THE ILL BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR SUCH MEAGER GAIN?

Angel Raich is ill -- very ill. She's subject to severe, debilitating pain 
from an inoperable brain tumor and more than a dozen other ailments, 
including a chronic wasting condition. Without effective medication, she 
can't walk, play with her children or sleep.

Angel Raich needs help. But because the California mother of two is 
following her doctor's recommendation, using marijuana in a desperate 
effort to find relief, the federal government considers her a criminal. And 
in its zeal to make an example of Raich, the Justice Department told the 
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that the federal war on drugs trumps any 
consideration of compassion for her or others like her.

But is that justice? Or injustice?

Either way, it's one more example of Washington's meddling in the 
doctor-patient relationship and attempting to usurp an important power 
historically handled by the states: regulation of medical practice. The 
Justice Department is still trying to prevent physicians from participating 
in Oregon's unique Death with Dignity Act, and Congress persists in playing 
doctor by limiting the techniques for performing otherwise legal abortions. 
Both issues are also in the courts.

Raich and her physician say they tried dozens of prescription medicines 
without success before turning to marijuana in various forms. Diane Monson, 
another California woman who suffers from chronic back trouble and painful 
muscle spasms, is part of the same case. Two years ago, federal agents 
seized from Monson's home the cannabis plants she was growing for her own 
medicinal use.

Since 1996, California and 11 other states from Maine to Hawaii have passed 
laws aimed at easing or eliminating penalties for the use of marijuana for 
medicinal purposes. Opponents say there are licensed drugs, including a 
"synthetic marijuana," that are just as effective. But research has found 
that for some desperate patients like Raich and Monson who have not found 
help elsewhere, marijuana can provide unique relief from pain, nausea and 
other conditions.

And despite claims that the medical-marijuana movement is a "Trojan horse" 
aimed at undercutting the war on drugs, there are few examples of abuse or 
further erosion of drug laws in the states that have tried it.

At the Supreme Court, the marijuana case poses a potentially painful choice 
for those justices who like to take a hard line on law-and-order issues -- 
and also see themselves as protecting the rights of the states from an 
ever-encroaching federal government.

But that's nothing compared with the pain facing patients like Raich and 
Monson if their doctors' options for treatment are unreasonably constrained 
by the fear of drug abuse. 

------------------------------

Subj: 008 US: States' Rights Defense Falters in Medical Marijuana Case
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:05:01 -0500

Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com/
Pubdate: Tue, 30 Nov 2004
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2004 The New York Times Company
Contact: 
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Linda Greenhouse
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich (Angel Raich)

STATES' RIGHTS DEFENSE FALTERS IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

Washington -- The effort by advocates of the medical use of marijuana to 
link their cause to the Supreme Court's federalism revolution appeared 
headed for failure at the court on Monday.

During a lively argument, the justices expressed little inclination to view 
drug policy as a states'-rights issue by which California and other states 
that have adopted "compassionate use" marijuana measures can displace 
federal regulation of homegrown marijuana distributed to patients without 
charge and without crossing state lines.

The closely watched case, which drew a crowd to the court, is an appeal by 
the Bush administration of a ruling last December by the federal appeals 
court in California that the federal Controlled Substances Act was "likely 
unconstitutional" as applied to two women who used marijuana under their 
doctors' care within the terms of Proposition 215, California's 
Compassionate Use Act, adopted by the voters in 1996.

Nine other states have adopted similar measures that permit people with 
chronic pain or illnesses like cancer and AIDS to use marijuana under a 
doctor's supervision.

By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit issued an injunction barring federal agents from seizing the 
women's marijuana supplies. One patient, Diana Monson, grows her own 
marijuana and uses it to ease severe back spasms. The other, Angel McClary 
Raich, who suffers from a brain tumor and other ailments, is too sick to 
cultivate her own marijuana and receives it without charge from two 
anonymous individuals. The two sued for an injunction after federal agents 
arrived at Ms. Monson's home in Butte County and, after a three-hour 
standoff with local law enforcement agents, seized and destroyed her six 
marijuana plants.

The Ninth Circuit panel held that under the Supreme Court's recent 
federalism precedents, the noncommercial intrastate activity in which the 
women were engaged did not fall within Congress's constitutional authority 
to regulate interstate commerce.

But illegal drugs are fungible and exist within a national market, Paul D. 
Clement, the acting solicitor general, told the Supreme Court in arguing 
the administration's appeal, Ashcroft v. Raich, No. 03-1454. "What we're 
talking about here is the possession, manufacture and distribution of a 
valuable commodity for which there is, unfortunately, a ready market," he said.

Mr. Clement asserted that Supreme Court precedents dating to the New Deal 
made clear that "the relevant focal point is not the individual plaintiff's 
activities" but rather the impact on the economy of an entire category of 
activity, taken as a whole, that Congress has chosen to regulate.

In fact, much of the debate in the courtroom on Monday centered on one 
particular precedent, Wickard v. Filburn, a decision from 1942 that upheld 
Congress's effort to support wheat prices by controlling wheat production. 
The court held that even the wheat that a farmer cultivated for home 
consumption could be regulated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act's 
quota system on the theory that all wheat production took place within a 
national market. That decision is regarded as one of the most far-reaching 
extensions of Congressional power that the Supreme Court has ever upheld.

Randy E. Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor arguing on 
behalf of the two women, told the justices on Monday that if they accepted 
the administration's argument in this case, "then Ashcroft v. Raich will 
replace Wickard v. Filburn as the most far-reaching example" of Congress's 
power over interstate commerce. Prohibition of "a class of activity that is 
noneconomic and wholly intrastate" was not essential to the government's 
"regulatory regime," he said, adding: "There is no interstate connection 
whatsoever."

But the justices whom Mr. Barnett needed to persuade, those who have 
questioned federal authority in recent cases, were skeptical. "It looks 
like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia told him, adding: "I always 
used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says." He continued: "Why 
is this not economic activity? This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. 
Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere."

Mr. Barnett said that relatively few people would meet the medical criteria 
for legal marijuana use, and that any impact on the overall market for 
marijuana would therefore be "trivial." The administration, by contrast, 
has predicted that 100,000 Californians would avail themselves of the 
statute if the court upholds the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

Justice David H. Souter asked Mr. Barnett for the population of California. 
The law professor shrugged. "Thirty-four million," Justice Anthony M. 
Kennedy, a former resident of Sacramento, interjected.

In that case, Justice Souter continued, the government's estimate of 
100,000 was "not implausible" and Mr. Barnett's prediction of a "trivial" 
effect "seems to me insupportable." Justice Souter said the circumstances 
of the two plaintiffs were "not a realistic premise on which to base 
constitutional law." His comment suggested that the marijuana advocates' 
litigation strategy of telling their story through two sympathetic female 
plaintiffs, especially Ms. Raich, whose physical suffering is evident in 
her wraith-like features and whose doctor says she would probably die 
without access to marijuana, might have backfired.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer told Mr. Barnett that his clients should ask the 
Food and Drug Administration to reclassify marijuana as appropriate for 
medical use; a refusal could then be the basis for a lawsuit charging the 
agency with abusing its discretion. Such a lawsuit would be "the obvious 
way to get what they want," Justice Breyer said, adding, "I guess medicine 
by regulation is better than medicine by referendum."

Mr. Clement's argument for the federal government did not go unchallenged. 
In decisions over the last few years invalidating federal laws dealing with 
gun possession near schools and with violence against women, the court has 
found that the activity Congress sought to regulate was insufficiently 
economic in nature to fall within the power to regulate interstate 
commerce. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted with the majority in those 
cases, told Mr. Clement that the precedents gave her "some concerns" about 
applying the Controlled Substances Act to the marijuana in this case.

In response, Mr. Clement said that in contrast to the national market in 
illicit drugs, the activities Congress addressed in those cases were 
essentially noneconomic. "This case is on the constitutional side of the 
line," he said.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has been under treatment for 
thyroid cancer since mid-October, was not in court on Monday. Justice John 
Paul Stevens, presiding in his absence, announced that the chief justice 
would take part in the case by reading the briefs and the argument transcript.

In other action on Monday, the court refused without comment to hear an 
appeal by the City of Albuquerque from a ruling that struck down campaign 
spending limits for candidates for local office - $174,720 for mayor and 
$17,059 for the City Council.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1976, in the landmark campaign finance decision 
in Buckley v. Valeo, that election expenditures were protected by the First 
Amendment and, unlike contributions, could not be limited. On that basis, 
the federal appeals court in Denver ruled in April of this year that the 
Albuquerque limits were unconstitutional. The National Voting Rights 
Institute, a Boston group that advocates stricter campaign finance limits, 
brought the appeal in anticipation that the justices might be persuaded to 
revisit the 1976 precedent. The case was City of Albuquerque v. Homans, No. 
04-413. 

------------------------------

Subj: 009 Add Louisiana to States with Legal MMJ?
From: "SHeath(DPFFLorida)" <>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:14:46 -0500

Per this story here:

US LA: LA Backs Calif Woman In Medical Marijuana Case
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04.n1705.a05.html

------------------------------

End of MAPTalk-Digest V04 #216
******************************

Mark Greer ()         ___ ___     _ _  _ _
Media Awareness Project              /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651                        | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258                (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759                                         | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/                      (_)

HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug NewsFeedback
Guest BookMailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch