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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 12, 2005
Perhaps the problem is at the 'study' level. Instead of fighting at the congressional and judicial level, maybe it would be wiser to push for more definitive testing that no one could refute.


I doubt that would do any good. The FDA or politicians would probably refute or ignore any study that said anything they don't want to hear. It's happened several times before.
on Jun 12, 2005
If you mean going to a skanky building, standing in line with a bunch of stoners pretending to be sick, and then giving TV crew the finger as you leave, then no, I think not.


What's wrong with giving a TV crew the finger?
on Jun 12, 2005
If you look at it in terms of politics, I think you'll find that the FDA does what they are told. If there were studies that showed that a big pharmecutical company could use pot in a reliable way, they'd pump millions into lobbying Congress and the FDA would heel like it always does *cough*Phen Phen*cough*.

To me, if this were this self-apparent, there'd be no way the FDA would overcome the lobbying of pharmacutical companies. Why aren't they interested?

"What's wrong with giving a TV crew the finger?"


When you are trying to prove that your "club" is a responsible distribution point for the suffering and diseased, and the people lined up around the block are unruly and look like they just came from a Bob Marley concert... well...
on Jun 12, 2005
When you are trying to prove that your "club" is a responsible distribution point for the suffering and diseased, and the people lined up around the block are unruly and look like they just came from a Bob Marley concert... well...



My question was meant in a half-humorous way. A lot of times TV crews and reporters are so obnoxious and intrusive, they deserve for someone to give them the finger.
on Jun 12, 2005


#30 by BakerStreet
Sunday, June 12, 2005





Marinol is the proof against your assertion, isn't it?



No, actually it isn't! If you go to the FDAs website you will see exactly what I'm talking about.
on Jun 13, 2005
i believe the court decided the case correctly despite believing marijuana is, at worst, less harmful than many other pharmaceuticals. i'm not taking any joy from it (other than the cheap thrill of seeing thomas reveal himself to be an activist judge once again ... ).

i hope this door being shut will cause another to open in congress although revising federal prohibitions involves much more than simple legislation. thanks to the unflagging and devious efforts of harry anslinger--first director of the former bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs--to permanently impose his personal moral judgement on the entire planet.

the ultimate result of anslinger's byzantine machinations and uncurbed abuse of his office is the un's single convention on narcotic drugs. altho it's no longer so draconian as it once was and provides for amendments, should the us initiate or support relaxing the convention, we'd be seen as extremely hypocritical. noncompliance would result in our being branded as a pariah nation. good ol harry was a genius in his own sick way.
on Jun 13, 2005

Really? There's some awfully misleading information on the DEA's website, then:

Frankly, I believe there's misleading information on EVERY government website, especially that of the DEA. Like any private company, they are selling something; hyperbole and gross misstatements are a good way to do it.

3 Pages1 2 3