I read in the SF Chronicle today that a case regarding the legality of medical marijuana is going back to the Supreme Court to be argued. The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454 for everyone's reference.

This issue has been discussed before but things have changed since the last time it was ruled on and many states allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes, some of them passing laws as recently as this past November.


The Supreme Court must decide whether the laws that ban Marijuana possession can be enforced in the states which allow medical marijuana.


Questions for debate:
1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similiar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?
I think it should be legal where appropriate, though all I think that would mean is that drug companies would buy raw marijuana and process it to produce active ingredients with minimal side-effects - not everyone with MS will want to be stoned the whole time, for example. I don't believe that legal medical marijuana will be quite the back-door to liberalisation some stoners imagine.
Paradoxically, if the big pharma-businesses caught onto this it might expedite this type of legalisation, since they've got big bucks to buy some pet politicians. I imagine they haven't so far because the commercial numbers don't stack up for them, rather than because it hasn't occurred to anyone.

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similiar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?
I do not believe that the current USSC will change the legal status of marijuana. Few judges have any medical background at all, and most of the current crop are socially quite conservative, so I don't think that cannabis-derivatives will be widely available any time soon.
And I just don't see that the raw or part-processed plants will be allowed to be smoked by going down this route - not with the current trends against tobacco smoking, anyway.

It took us several hundred years of near universal tobacco smoking to cotton on to the health risks of that habit. As yet, marijuana is still a minority interest, so we just don't have the figures for the health effects of mass consumption. (Still more so for the so-called "healthier" herbal cigarettes some tobacco smokers switch to." And for smoking it specifically, it's near impossible to isolate them anyway, since so many Smokers also use tobacco, either as separate cigarettes, or in the mix.

1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?
Absolutely, it should be made legal, at least for medicinal purposes, if not outright legal for all. For every 'scientific' analysis about the hazards of cannabis, I can find one that says it's no more harmful than alchohol. The 'war on drugs' is a joke, as is the prohibition against industrial hemp. (Which could be another thread in itself)

Easing the suffering of people afflicted with various diseases far outweighs the moral superiority of some of our 'fine' citizens. The Declaration promises us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But when the government dictates what brands of happiness we can have, it ceases to be a right.

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

They will not change the status quo. They're too timid to instigate real change. The machine is too entrenched in the war on drugs, is too afraid of being viewed as 'soft', and the Twinkie lobby is simply not strong enough to fight the power of the pharmecuticals.

Funny how I can be pressured to dope up my kids on Ritalin, but god forbid I relax with a joint.

Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?

Why is marijuana illegal again? What makes this substance so dangerous? It's because it is illegal. Instead of being sold at store's it's sold on the streets. The only harmful affects of marijuana come with substance abuse and illegalizing it. We can only cure one of them easily.

How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similiar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

Let's look at the arguements.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/29/scotus.m...a.ap/index.html





So here we have the government's argument which can be summed up in a few words 'drugs are bad mmmkkkaayy'.

On the other hand we have people with tumors, cancer and various other diseases stating that it helps them cope with the life threatening diseases.

Though I do not know the details of the current federal laws banning maurijuana but if it where to be decided on these two cases alone the ruling should go against the government easily.

1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?

Of course it should. How on Earth can anybody deny medicine to the sick? I can find no legal reason for the Feds intervening. And no, I don't smoke it.

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

Despite what is written, the Supremes do not rule with their heads. Like most of us they take their prejudices and personal beliefs into account when making their decisions. If any one of them is objective and truly interested in only the law, then that person can only find that the Constitution leaves that one up to State Law. However, most of them will rule based upon their personal belief (worries)on "drugs". My guess is that they will rule in favor of the Feds.

1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?

Absolutely and we should go a step further and legalize and regulate most drugs! Regulated in such a way as to prohibit access by minors, as we do with alcohol now. There are obvious nuances and each drug should be addressed on its own, based on where it falls on classification charts such as this one.

The huge burden in crime is caused by the fact that it's illegal. Prohibition gave rise to Al Capone. Illegal drugs have given rise to street gangs. The drug laws caused the murder and mayhem of gangs (current and past such as Capone’s), not the other way around. Did we not learn anything with the prohibition of alcohol? It did not lessen drinking.

Jobs lost to the WOT would be offset by all the jobs created by legalization. Only difference is the jobs created would be paying taxes dollars rather than spending tax dollars. Reduction in government, increase in private industry... win - win situation.

In addition, don't we "own" our bodies? In a free society, shouldn't we be able to pursue whatever we want, so long as we are not harming others and especially if it eases the pain caused by a debilitating illness?

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similiar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

I too believe they will rule for the Feds, although if those who lean to the right on that bench would practice what the right preaches, they will rule for states rights.

I dont even know how to approach this discussion with calm, since I am infuriated and frustrated with the country on so many levels, but in these last days hearing those in our government say that 'Marijuana is of no medicinal value', sends me over the cliff.
They are of the most predjudiced, blinded by ignorance without desire to unlearn outdated information, refusing to accept research and testimony in lew of cruel, paranoid, uneducated judgements, enough to condemn too many people to unreasonable hardship, without ever having experienced either the sickness or the drug... it makes me absolutely livid with contempt for the feebleminded in our admin, and it seems they abound.

I am living with a lymphoma patient. He is on his first course of chemo. He was thin to begin with. Its been 7 days since his last chemo treatment. I have seen this man take IV food in the hospital because he cannot control vomitting. In our home since... he has eaten a few raisins, a potato, some rice and a few slices of turkey in 4 days.
He has 4 different pills to take for nausea and vomiting, yet he cannot keep down a cup of cammomile tea. He has 5 other medications to take, all 'with food', but no food stays down.

Everyone who calls says, 'get some weed'. People who have been through it, people who know. I am talking to him, I got some for him. He said, "what about my job? If they find out Im on it (blood work) will I lose my benefits?" I say,' will you make it through the chemo series to have a job to go back to?'

The research has been done. Studies done in NY and NM, observed by the FDA, of inhaled and injested cannibis have shown improved results in reducing nausea and vomitting in cancer patients. (more so for inhalants than ingested)
Synthetic THC (Marinol) is not well tolerated due to an 8 hour high and again 'pill' form. Studies show inhalents, smoking or vaporizing is the most effective, easily controlled dosage.
The UK is attempting to release an under the tongue spray called SATIVEX for MS patients to control pain, but in the puritanical US it could TAKE YEARS for the FDA to get over that its cannibis based.
http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com/projects/sativex/
The positive effects of cannabis are known, except to those who desire to believe in some sort of 'Reefer Madness' and cling to it with unrestrained stupidity.

It is interesting to note that those who (truthfully) speak of the benefits of marijuana for themselves are in the most deep and intolerable suffering, beyond normal pain or discomfort. These are people with illnesses that do not allow them to get along in daily life, to walk, eat, rise each day. Our government talks of drug addiction, towards people who have only a life to live IF they survive their treatment....and let me say this....if you dont eat through a chemo series, you will die. Chemo is killing you in an attempt to kill the cancer. White platlets are reduced to dangerous levels and the only recourse is to keep the body alive as best you can. The anti-emetics (nausea meds) dont work so good, and even if you can tolerate them they dont induce appetite like MJ.

IMO, we are suffering from extreme ignorance in this nation and it is sickening to behold. Will America ever Grow UP, be an Adult Nation and Get a Goddam Life of its own?
It seems to me we make so many decisions based on fear as a first recourse.

I believe this falls in states rights, I have no other way to go considering my situation. I only hope for the best, since Alaska has both pro-personal possession and medical marijuana law, although still difficult to obtain through legal channels.

At the time of the writing of the constitution 'welfare' meant: "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
Conversely,


I am so confused!!!!!!!

- source (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8) <edited to remove what did not apply>

OK, so where did congress get the power to pass all of these anti-drug laws? And specifically in this case, where does congress get the power to over-ride the will of the people of these states?

If it's based on the "provide for the common defense / common welfare" line then we are in trouble because that means the courts will allow any abuse or loss of liberty they see fit and use this to justify it.

Commerce? It seems clear that the congress was restricted to dealing with commerce between states and other bodies, and not granted power to regulate commerce within the borders states.

The last point specifically says that congress has the power to write law to enable them to carry out "the foregoing Powers". So, unless you argue that one of the other powers mentioned in section 8 cover this issue then it is moot.

The rest of section 8 really does not apply in my opinion.

I just don't see where in the Constitution to Federal Government has a right to do this. Though I don't see where they have the right to do about 2/3rds of what they do.

I for one wonder why the people of California don't seek succession. They will has been over turned by the federal government consistently foe over a decade at least (going back to at least Prop. 187).

This is a matter simply of a state authorizing one person in their state to grow a plant in their state and sell or give it to another person in their state.

If this is not a states rights issue then perhaps the concept simply does not exist any longer.

overlandsailor, thank you for straitening this out.
This case would give the Supreme Court a splendid opportunity to limit Congress to its Constitutional powers only (and should do so) and strictly enforce the Tenth Amendment by saying that if Constitution does not give Congress the power to do some thing, then it is strictly in the states' realm of power. I wish the Federal Government should strictly follow the Constitution, but how to make it do so is a different topic.

(edited for spelling and clarity)

So much for the judiciary. The Supreme Court can be cohersed by the sitting Admins views? Yes. So we fall into categories which are akin to South America and Italy, where corruption rules the Judiciary and the Admin tells them 'How' to rule. No real suprise here, just one more step in the erosion of our 'oh so free' democracy. Its interesting that 'activist judges' are only seen as activist when they are not doing the Admins bidding.

How they will argue against States rights shall be a genial work of judiciary spin, perhaps that is why they need THREE MONTHS to decide on a ruling.

Ive watched the conservative news pundits on this as well. How many intelligent people are against 'medical marijuana'?

Between the issues of stem cell research, gay rights and medical marijuana, this country is in the Dark Ages.

Spot On!!! If I grow something in my backyard and smoke it, and states-rights "strict constructionists" can find some sort of interstate commerce in that activity, then we have a problem here. It's nice that the Supreme Court has an opinion (or will have an opinion) on this issue. Why don't they go to a bar and argue among themselves. If they issue a binding decision based on the commerce clause, I will puke. The only positive that can come out of this is if they (finally) rebuke the Justice dep't for overstepping its bounds in the drug "war."

Unlike others here, I am cautiously optimistic. We are due for some sense from the Supremes.

Does the constitution have invisible ink or does human perception(or other terms) in general have relativity in it? I think i will go with option #2, and like so many other things, this case, or point in time, or whatever will be open to the effects of such. Science is a method applied to the natural world to try and attain fact, if something has no fact to it in the domain of science it dies out basically, like is the earth really perfectly round? so on and etc...

How does that play a role in this, well if you look at the "smoked" remark in one of the statements in an above thread that angle can be played by the opfor, as it would be bad for your health, but so is just sucking in oxygen. I think if the "good guys" want to win, then will have to get inside in order to beat the opponent, not just stick in some lame fashion to their points alone. If the chemicals in marijuana do what the sick people say, these chemicals can be found or the reason withing marijuana that gives the sick people an easier time coping with their position. i feel the other end of it will be dealing with an iron clad position that will rule absolute because they feel its right for the people or something, and or to go along with some other motivation whatever that may be.

Wow, that's rather dark portrayal of something that has happened through many administrations.

The Adminstration will likely file a brief with the supreme court, making their beliefs on the issue plain. Something the Presidents have been doing for a long time. The Supreme Court will take this brief into account along with all the other briefs and testimony. After a full review, they will reach a decision, and being that they are human beings that decision will at least be effected by, if not based on, their personal opinions.

When people say something like, "they will likely follow the Admin.'s lead" I tend to take that as meaning they will likely agree with the Administration, not that they will take their marching orders from it.



Well, I can't speak for intelligent people but I know I support the idea.

What it comes down to, with those I discuss this issue with that know how to reason is rather simple. What controls are in place to prevent these drugs, grown for medical use, from being sold to regular people who just want to smoke it?

My answer to that is pretty simple. Good question! But it is a good question for that State. The Federal Government has no business in this issue unless those drugs are sold to people in other states.

Briefs are available - pdf links once you get to the site, scroll down for the latest.

angeljustice

Of course, medicinal purposes permitting, marijuana should be prescribed to those with logical reasons. Present-day capabilities make it impossible to vaccinate a tumor and render it painless, however patients with diseases that will eventually claim the patients life should be given the drug to reduce to pains of the ailment. It is the purpose of a doctor to heal or comfort as best possible. It should not be so in our Constitution that a patient with a critical disease should be sent to die in a pain that grips them like swords bleeding them to death, it is not even worthy of justification. It is the most despicable and vial thing to do to a patient you know you can help reduce the pain in their last months/weeks/hours to turn away and tell them that they should enjoy time remaining.
To not rule in favor of medical uses of marijuana would be a mistake. Doctors are denied the option of relieving pain, part of the oath they must have taken to become a healer. How cruel is it to let a person simply die in pain, to let their love ones final memories of that person be of tortured agony and undying pain? Do not imply that marijuana is wrong in these cases, it is not, for its purpose in these settings would not be the use to relieve the daily conflicts of an individuals daily functions, it would be to steal the pain away from their minds and let them wonder into a greater peace. The price of marijuana being cleared for use in painful situations is small compared to the agony we could save the families and victims of whatever affliction wound up making this question an issue.

1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?

Yes, medical marijuana should be legalized. If someone wants to use marijuana in the privacy and protection of their own home where they are not a threat to anyone, then i say it is ok. However, the moment you step out your front door high...i think law enforcement should slap you with fines and jails sentences. If you want to use the substance, fine, but do not put others at risk by getting behind the wheel of an automobile or endanger someone by walking.

Furthermore, marijuana should be used in cases ONLY where the person has a serious illness in which the pain is so excruciating that they need cannabis to help with the pain. My great-grandfather was as conservative a man as you could meet, but at the end of his life, he needed marijuana to dull the pain he had. This proves to me that the substance can be effective when used for medicinal purposes.

However, any talk about legalizing it for pleasure purposes is out of the question in my mind.

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similiar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

I dont know how they will rule on the issue. The mere fact that they decided to here the case instead of resting on their prior decision is proof enough that they might change their position. It will be an interesting case to watch. My only fear is that it might turn into a slippery slope where we legalize marijuana fully and other substances. That should not happen and would not benefit the citizens of this country.

This debate, when it comes down to it, really is about the ignorance of this population to marijuana. For decades now, people see marijuana as a substance that many use to get high. In long term effects, marijuana can cause an addiction and is a gateway drug to other extremely dangerous drugs, such as crack cocaine, pcp (angel dust), meth, tranqs, and much more.

Because of this train of thought, it is almost taboo and unheard of to legalize marijuana. But most of this population do not know the good that marijuana can bring for the nerve and eyes.

1. Should medical marijuana be legal in states that have enacted laws allowing it? Why or why not?

Ultimately, yes, it should... not because of any qualities of the MJ itself, but because the Federal govt had no authority to make laws regarding MJ in the first place. Those Federal laws should be null and void, and the individual states should make the laws they see fit about allowing or banning MJ within their borders.

That said, we are nonetheless in the situation where there IS a Federal law banning MJ, and the courts have not yet seen fit to overturn it. So, the corollary question is, should states have the authority to override a clear Federal law? My answer: No. This would directly violate the concept that the Federal govt is superior to the State governments. The 10th amendment hints at this, though that amendment carefully phrases it in terms of the Constitution rather than the "Federal govt" in general.

If the Federal MJ law were constitutional, that is, authorized under the Constitution, then the states would have absolutely no authority to permit it in their state, whether they like it or not. Just as, since the 13th amendment forbidding slavery is constitutional (it has to be - it's part of the Constitution itself!), this means the states have no authority to permit slavery within state borders.

2. How do you believe the Supreme Court will rule on this issue? Will the make a similar ruling as the last time (against medical marijuana) or could the changes in society sway them?

This may be one of the odd times where the conservative and liberal factions in this Supreme Court come together, for radically different reasons. Conservatives such as Scalia, Thomas, and possibly Rehnquist may agree with my argument above (smart dudes! and strike down the Federal law. At the same time, liberal extremists such as Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer might decide that they see nothing wrong with MJ (as usual with no attempt to consult the Constitution) and rule that the states somehow CAN override a Federal law in this case... which, of course, can set a horrible precedent in future cases in many venues. And the vote will come out at least 6-3 in favor of the States permitting marijuana at their discretion.

Whether the Federal law banning MJ gets struck down, may well depend on who writes the Opinion of the Court!

This is a big issue at my school, as I am sure it is with all eager, thrill seeking, civilly disobedient high school teenagers. This is one of those things that has parents and kids going back and forth about what is "right and wrong". I think that where it is needed such as in glaucoma patients, that is perfectly ok to allow marijuana as a drug. However I don't want this to be like Amsterdam where you can light up a joint and then go for a joyride through a crowded suburb. This issue has several pro's and con's. One of the biggest pro's of legalizing pot is that kid's would stop doing it. It is just like all drugs, the more illegal it is the stronger the urge to try it illegally which is more dangerous than letting them have it. I say give it to them but have restrictions. Alcohol, for instance, all kids want to try it before they can do it legally, same goes for cigarrettes. I know that marijuana and other drugs are all extremely dangerous to people, but they will eventually realize the dangers and stop. This is an issue that can only be resolved on a national level. We can't designate just which states should be allowed to legalize pot, it would'nt be right to deny something to people in Texas when people in New Mexico get it. Especially something as desired as marijuana. Is it?

My understanding of this issue is that they would be considering only medical marijuana, meaning you could only obtain it through a perscription. I suppose some would try and make a slippery slope argument here, but that is my understanding of it.

I do wonder though, what ended up happening to this case. I posted this back in November and forgot about it and recently the thread has been resurrected. I haven't heard anything in the news about a ruling here. Does anyone know anything? I might poke around and see if I can find out the status on this later today unless someone beats me to it.

My assumption here is that if a decision was reached it would be one of those front page news items, so I'm wondering if it got dismissed.

Edited to add:
I dug around a bit and it appears that arguments are ongoing and a decision is expected by spring this year, so basically any day now

I also ran across this blog which presents a very detailed analysis of the facts of the case if anyone is interested.