The journey from there to here
(The following is a press release from the Libertarian Party at www.lp.org):
 
Libertarian Party Condemns the Supreme Court Decision Against the use of Medical Marijuana


 

(Washington, D.C.) In a 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the federal government will continue to arrest and prosecute sick and terminally ill Americans who use marijuana for medical purposes.   The decision supersedes state laws and the votes of citizens that allow the medical use of marijuana.

While the people of California and other states voted for the right of sick and dying patients to use marijuana as a medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s ruling permits the federal government to ignore the recorded decisions of an electorate.  

Currently, ten states allow residents to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes.  The court ruling, which was pushed forward by the Bush administration, not only lacks compassion for the sick but is also a clear encroachment upon states’ rights.

Libertarian Party Executive Director Joe Seehusen stated, “This ruling is not only a blow to the elderly, sick and terminally ill, but also represents the further decline of states’ rights.”  Mr. Seehusen continued, “It is important that the American public does not minimize this issue by believing that it only affects ‘pot smokers’ as it is a much deeper debate involving the intrusion of the federal government upon the states, the power of the prescription drug lobby, and the growing limits on individual freedom.” 

The Libertarian Party is a long-standing advocate for individual liberty and believes that Americans should be responsible for their own actions and, in this case, be able to use alternative forms of medication outside of the realm of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

Working with like-minded groups, the Libertarian Party will help craft federal legislation that will assist individuals needing medical marijuana to pursue treatment methods without fear of arrest and prosecution by the federal government.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 11, 2005
Americans should be responsible for their own actions and, in this case, be able to use alternative forms of medication outside of the realm of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.


I agree. Did you see the show on the History Channel Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way?
on Jun 11, 2005
No, I don't have the History Channel, sadly enough (I'm longing for the day when cable companies realize they can make more money by selling channels a la carte).
on Jun 11, 2005
Further decline of states rights.. True. However, unless the Supreme Court is willing to tell the FDA it no longer has the authority to regulate and classify meds, it was the right ruling.

The big questions now are, will local, state and federal law enforcement agencies face the press onslaught that is sure to come with any arrest and prosecution of the elderly, sick and terminally ill. This part remains to be seen.

It is consistant, and politically profitable for the LP to take on this issue though. There has been too much emphasis from the LP on complete legalization. For PR purposes, they need to be seen as taking stands that voters can join in on.
on Jun 11, 2005
Para,

I have long held with my stance that the LP needs to lead with the issues it can win. That doesn't mean abandon their more controversial issues, just don't LEAD with them.

Examples of issues that can be won: CPS overreach (obviously my pet issue), medical marijuana, lower taxes (and, in some areas, smaller government).

Examples of issues that are not as readily winnable: Complete drug legalization (though, for the record, I stand firmly on the LP's side on this issue), an end to indecency laws (we had a lengthy debate about this one on an LP message board that I won't detail here), elimination of welfare programs.

ALL of the LP's positions have merit, even the most controversial proposals. But to win over public opinion on the more controversial issues, we must have proven success in the "winnable" areas first.
on Jun 11, 2005
I don't buy it. There are medications made with derivitives of pot. There are many, many medications that are better at reducing pain and suffering than pot. The idea that these people's only choice is to roll a fatty is silly, imho.

The terminally ill and suffering need medical treatment, not a dealer with a dime bag. If their only hope was overturning our stance on drugs, then perhaps they'd have a point. I'd prefer to sock people in the teeth instead of getting along with them sometimes. My preferences take a back seat to society's.

on Jun 11, 2005

Baker,

I'm gonna toot the "states' rights" horn with this one. I believe there are medical benefits to marijuana, and I'm not alone in my thinking. But most importantly, this is an issue that I feel should be left to the states to decide, not the fed.

on Jun 11, 2005
The "State's Rights" argument isn't going to work on this one. The people want the government to regulate medicine and there's no way each state can set up its own FDA.

Also, if Marijuana is going to be legalized, the next thing that will happen is the lawsuits against the government because of the connections smoking it will have with lung cancer. Sorry, but no matter how legal it might become, burning carbon based leafs is still going to produce carcinigens... and taking a toke and holding the smoke is still going to bring on the ugly of cancer.
on Jun 11, 2005

Also, if Marijuana is going to be legalized, the next thing that will happen is the lawsuits against the government because of the connections smoking it will have with lung cancer.

Para,

You don't HAVE to SMOKE marijuana to receive the medical benefits. Ingestion is FAR preferable, in my opinion.

on Jun 11, 2005
Sorry, Gid, but Para's right. The FDA has authority to oversee these kinds of medical treatments. These laws try to subvert that.

I think you'd offer a more focused front if you tried to assert the FDA itself was was functioning in opposition to state's rights. As it stands, your party's stance seems to be a workaround.
on Jun 11, 2005

I think you'd offer a more focused front if you tried to assert the FDA itself was was functioning in opposition to state's rights. As it stands, your party's stance seems to be a workaround.

Frankly, MY position is just that. I don't know if you remember the article, but the FDA was on my "short list" of federal agencies I would like to see disbanded.

I don't see the party's stance as a workaround, though. See it that way if you will, but I think there's a seriously dangerous precedent set by this particular decision.

In defense of the Supreme Court, I WILL say they did in their decision urge the FDA to change its stance regarding medical marijuana. That, at least, is a first.

on Jun 11, 2005
on Jun 11, 2005
Gid: How is it not a workaround. Your party stands on the idea that it should be a state's right to decide about this medication. The FDA pre-empts that right. How can the Libertarian party not make this about the FDA?

It would be like me saying that I don't have a problem with the IRS, but it is the state's rights to reject the IRS's authority, wouldn't it? If the Libertarian party has a problem with the FDA, shouldn't they focus on the FDA?

Sorry, but to me it sounds like they are making a political decision, accepting the FDA's presence because it is too big of a fight. Isn't that what people go to the Libertarian party to avoid?
on Jun 11, 2005
P.S. I hope you don't see this as pimping my blog, but I was really interested in seeing your opinion of my "My Enemy's Enemy Sucks Just as Much." blog. I think this is a good example of what I was trying to say.
on Jun 11, 2005

#5 by BakerStreet
Saturday, June 11, 2005





I don't buy it. There are medications made with derivatives of pot. There are many, many medications that are better at reducing pain and suffering than pot. The idea that these people's only choice is to roll a fatty is silly, imho.
The terminally ill and suffering need medical treatment, not a dealer with a dime bag. If their only hope was overturning our stance on drugs, then perhaps they'd have a point. I'd prefer to sock people in the teeth instead of getting along with them sometimes. My preferences take a back seat to society's.




Baker, your wrong. The reason there are no medications is because the feds have outlawed the same. The active ingredient is THC which is the same category as pot itself. So the very use of THC to make a derivatives is illegal. The only meds better at reducing pain are heavy narcotics. I don't know about you but I'd rather use something that is a proven non-addictive drug over one that's almost guaranteed addictive.
on Jun 11, 2005

#7 by ParaTed2k
Saturday, June 11, 2005





The "State's Rights" argument isn't going to work on this one. The people want the government to regulate medicine and there's no way each state can set up its own FDA.

Also, if Marijuana is going to be legalized, the next thing that will happen is the lawsuits against the government because of the connections smoking it will have with lung cancer. Sorry, but no matter how legal it might become, burning carbon based leafs is still going to produce carcinigens... and taking a toke and holding the smoke is still going to bring on the ugly of cancer.


Sorry Ted but your also wrong. The "carcinogen" in tobacco smoke is nicotine which is NOT present in pot. Sorry guys but your not gonna win this one with me. As an MS sufferer I would greatly benefit from "medical" legalization of pot. It is a BIG help with spasticity of muscles which is a part of MS.
3 Pages1 2 3