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 ...
"People didn't do drugs, not because of some law, but because they had character and self esteem that wouldn't allow them."
Sure they didn't. They didn't go to the bathroom, either.
That's right! Look at some of the older movies. You never see a bathroom scene.
Yes it is. But we won't get it back by simply easing up on the laws.
If the laws are wrong, enforcing them only makes things worse.
If they didn't have the authority, then your interpretation of "Necessary and Proper" is in error, or their use of federal highway funds in being done to force compliance with unnecessary and improper laws.
Because is was turned over to the states problems arose -- problems which the states were unable (or unwilling) to solve. (I bet that never occurred to you.)
The federal government intervened, but it still had no authority other than the threat to withhold federal highway funds.
I thought "Necessary and Proper" gave Congress the authority to extend their power to areas not explicity within their control - ie reserved to the States.
I don't see how it would apply here.
Duty? Would that be anything like "responsibility"?
"Necessary and Proper" would be a test applied to some legislation written to enable Congress to successfully exercise their Constitutional powers.
"Necessary and Proper" would be a test applied to some legislation written to enable Congress to successfully exercise their Constitutional powers.
How about this:
Necessary - not arbitrary or capricious
and Proper - within the scope of Congresses' enumerated power under the Constitution.
That is of course, an excellent point. Narcotics can be highly addictive, yet no one seems to get to upset when they are prescribed for children. Marijuana may or may not be physically addictive, but if someone can get relief from it instead of something like oxycontin, more power to them. Yet there is still "hysteria" when someone uses it for medical purposes. Go figure.
Hmmmm. I think if the law were within the within the scope of Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution, we wouldn't need the "Necessary and Proper" clause.
If you think about it.
For that matter, is the "Necessary and Proper" clause, like the "General Welfare" clause, actually a grant of power, or is it a directive?
It is a Congressional power, however, like any other power in Article I, Section 8, ... to make ALL laws ... for carrying into execution the enumerated powers. Seems pretty powerful.
Seems like an open ended arrangement for an enumerated power. Rather inconsistent with the idea of a national government with strictly limited and carefully enumerated powers, I'd think.
I'm sure you've read my tagline by now, it says exactly what I believe.
For better or worse, the State governments need to either individually or collectively figure out a way to legislate laws concerning drug use by individuals. Once the federal government begins meddling in too many affairs, it ceases to be effective at managing ANY of them. Since our federal government is in shambles right now, I think the only way out is for it to begin relinguishing authority over some areas, so that it may refocus itself on those specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Perhaps it's a pipedream, but nonetheless, it's my opinion. It's also my opinion that Bush's problem with medical marijuana comes from his "buddies" in the prescription drug industry. Same reason he opposes "reimportation", same reason he initiated the prescription drug giveaway addition to Medicare. Politics and big business, nothing more.
You and I disagree, which is fine, but I do not see a consistent theme among your posts. Do you favor individual liberty and responsibility? Do you favor big government solutions? Do you favor any government that pushes YOUR morals upon other people? What is your baseline principle that drives your position on this issue?
I referred to that concept in the underlined portion of this post.
I'm sure you'll find FDR's philosophy and rationale friendly and familiar territory.
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.