Posted on 11/28/2004 9:20:33 AM PST by Ellesu
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/28/MNGQ4A2RL11.DTL
Partially paralyzed, in constant pain from multiple disorders and desperate for help after trying nearly three dozen doctor-prescribed medications, the 30-year-old woman, a product of a conservative upbringing that made her recoil from illegal drugs, decided pot "might be my last shot.''
She's suffered back pain from scoliosis and pelvic pain from endometriosis since her teenage years. She became partially paralyzed from an allergic reaction to doctor-recommended birth control pills in 1995.
Since then, she's been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and a wasting syndrome. She keeps 98 to 100 pounds on her 5- foot-4 frame only by gorging on high-calorie foods and using marijuana to maintain her appetite.
There's no euphoric effect. I do not like using it.''
Still, she takes her pipe everywhere, even to the Oakland Police Department, where she's worked with officers on their encounters with medical marijuana patients. She also vaporizes the drug, mixes it with massage oils, or bakes it in zucchini bread, which she eats in large quantities before a rare and agonizing plane trip like her journey to Washington for Monday's hearing.
Raich, now 39, has a doctor's recommendation for marijuana, as required by Prop. 215, and says she needs the medication every two hours. She wakes up in pain every morning and requires help getting out of bed. She uses 8 pounds of marijuana a year and gets it for free from two caregivers -- "my heroes'' -- in thanks for her work as an advocate.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yes. But more recent is UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS’ COOPERATIVE (00-151) 532 U.S. 483 (2001), by the same court that is hearing Raich. In that case the USSC ruled "that marijuana may not be distributed to persons who prove a medical necessity for the drug. The court's decision affirms an existing federal law that classifies marijuana as an illegal substance and offers no medical exceptions"
"Noting that current federal law states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's unanimous opinion, "In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project)."
"2) Morrison was a break from precedent, too"
Not really. It was a continuation of a break from precedent set by United States v. Lopez (93-1260), 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (aka the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 -rp) in which the court ruled that Congress exceeded its commerce clause authority.
" 3) this case is different because the marijuana is not being used for recreational use"
Well no, they tried that tack in UNITED STATES V. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS’ COOPERATIVE (above) and lost.
No, this time in Raich they're claiming that since the marijuana is being supplied to Ms. Raich at no charge, it's not "commerce" and Congress has no authority. I think they're also pushing the "intrastate" aspect.
Whatever. The USSC has precedent in Wickard v Filburn to overturn the ninth circuit .... again.
"Cancer patients (and other seriously ill people) are just too small a group to have any non-trivial effect on interstate commerce."
Hah! In Wickard v Filburn, the USSC ruled against one man as affecting interstate commerce. Actually the USSC said, "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.
And it didn't bother me one bit, I didn't even know it happened!
So, you favor government advancing moral authority over people so long as it's YOUR morals being advanced?
Not me.
Perhaps you should e-mail the management of FR and suggest that we change the home page to read "A libertarian forum".A conservative position is what's in place today.
Does this include the drug laws based on the New Deal and Great Society?
You Catholics have some strange marriage rituals. ;-P
FDR would be proud. Tell me, is there any activity that you don't believe has an "impact" on interstate commerce? After all, if X is any noncommercial intrastate activity, it can be prohibited, because if I don't do X, I might instead do some other activity that does involve interstate commerce, right?
Say California, Nevada, and New Jersey legalize marijuana and cocaine. They border seven states where drugs remain illegal.
Will those seven states be in a worse position regarding their efforts at controlling recreational drugs? Don't you think those seven states should have a say-so in turning the decision over to the states?
Do you see why I want an amendment?
Isn't it likely that the gangs in California and New Jersey (both on the ocean) will get into the marijuana and cocaine export business? Can other governments send their air force over to napalm our coca fields and spray parquat on our marijuana?
I don't know about that, Bob. Otherwise there'd be a state employee on every streetcorner here in Boston handing out free jaybars to passers-by. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
What about states which have no sales tax that attract consumers from neighboring states? What about states which collect no income tax, attracting residents who cross into states for employment or conducting business?
What about states where gambling is legal?
What about "dry" counties which encourage people to drive further away from home to go to the bar, and thus further to get home while impaired?
Don't these issues cause problems for neighboring cities/states too? Is the answer to each a federal law?
Actually, I liked the way it used to be -- we didn't have near as many laws as we have today.
Back then, people took personal responsibility for their actions. People paid their own way, and people, through their community and churches, helped other people.
The was no "health insurance". There was no "welfare".
People didn't do drugs, not because of some law, but because they had character and self esteem that wouldn't allow them.
The current laws came into being because people lost their morality. Those laws reflect the will of the majority, not my morality.
"She has to use large plastic bags to ingest the marijuana vapor. She does not smoke it."
She sure as hell was smoking it when she was on the news last night.
But these people with 'lost' morality had the great judgment to elect honest legislators and enact 'moral' laws???
Give me a break! The laws are immoral.
"Tell me, is there any activity that you don't believe has an "impact" on interstate commerce?"
First, Congress has to decide that it wants to regulate some interstate activity "Y" for some reason. Their constituents (ie., voters) would have to agree. It would have to pass both houses, get the Presidents signature, and survive any and all court challenges.
Now, it comes to pass that some "X" of yours is going on. Congress determines that "X" has a "substantial effect" on their regulatory efforts of "Y" and pass legislation limiting/prohibiting "X". The courts would have to agree 1) that "X" has a substantial effect on "Y" and that 2) the Congressional legislation is "Necessary and Proper" for the regulation of "Y".
There were two recent case where the court did not agree with Congress and struck down the legislation.
So to answer your question, many things have an impact on interstate activity. But unless that interstate activity is being regulated who cares? And if it is regulated, only an activity that has a substantial effect is of any interest.
Let me ask you. If Congress is constitutionally regulating some interstate activity, does it make sense that some statewide activity should be allowed to undermine and subvert those congressional efforts?
The majority of liberals take the pro-drug position. You know that.
Yes they do, and they are all excellent examples of what I'm talking about.
"Is the answer to each a federal law?"
In most cases, no. But I recall when disparate drinking ages between adjacent states were causing a severe problem. So severe that the federal government did step in and pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984.
The government, however, did not have the authority to enforce the law, but used federal highway funds to ensure compliance.
No. They stayed home on election night and smoked dope.
What?!
I gather that being a product of a liberal upbringing would make one gravitate towards illegal drugs.
Works for me.
With all due respect, I don't think that's the case at all. If that were the case, we'd have some fairly lax drug laws here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, since Massachusetts lacks, completely, any sort of conservative voting block in our state legislature that would challenge those drug-loving liberals. But drug laws in Massachusetts are on par with drug laws in other states. They might even be more strict than the drug laws in other states, since MA does not permit medical marijuana.I think drug legalization is less a conservative/liberal issue as it is a collective/individual issue. I can understand how the government could make a compelling argument to make certain drugs illegal to use or sell, but I certainly cannot see how they could make such an argument in the specific case of marijuana. In the absence of such a compelling argument, any true conservative would have to side with the individual over the collective.
Haha!
Why won't you deal with the cognitive dissonance in your post #129?
Oooh. Are those your Reader's Digest "Building Your Vocabulary" words for this week? Way to go. And you used them in a sentence, too.
There's no dissonance in my cognitive. What have we got ... 20 million drug users? I think that 120 million voters have enough collective morality to elect the representatives necessary to pass the drug laws we need.
The drug laws 'we need' have nothing to do with it.
The drug laws 'we have' are the fruit of 'lobbying' by drug lords and Alphabet Agency lifers.
Morality is a country mile over the horizon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.