Dying woman not immune to drug charges?!....

Kryztina · #1 03-14-2007, 03:14 PM

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.
The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.
Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.
Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision and said she would continue using the drug.
"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh my God."

ViRedd · #2 03-14-2007, 04:21 PM

She's still safe. The Supreme Court decision only applies to federal laws and not state laws.

Vi

7xstall · #3 03-14-2007, 09:17 PM

yes, and hopefully the DEA will have better things to do than force itself on her. this case does, imo, contribute a huge boost of needed momentum in the public psyche regarding medical use.

entropic · #4 03-15-2007, 02:36 AM

Federal law supersedes state law, so they can still bust her on federal chargers but the amount of negative publicity that would generate is probably not worth it to the people in power, they want to seize large sums of cash with the drugs so they can justify more federal spending finding these large growers so they can steal all their cash (and all their assets which they automatically assume were purchased with your 'ill-gotten' money.

Dankdude · #5 03-15-2007, 06:37 AM

Federal law supersedes state law?

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that, it is only said by is only said by the right-winger faction of the supreme court.
According to the Constitution States Rights trumps the federal government.
The Constitution is a great document, you should read it sometime.

entropic · #6 03-15-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dankdude

Federal law supersedes state law?

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that, it is only said by is only said by the right-winger faction of the supreme court.
According to the Constitution States Rights trumps the federal government.
The Constitution is a great document, you should read it sometime.

Are you saying the feds won't bust you if you're growing medical marijuana and they find out about it? Your view of the Constitution is idealistic at best, the courts manipulate the wording to whatever outcome they want, and before you get arrested and base your defense on your view of the Constitution look around on the web and you'll see the feds don't give a shit and they have the legal precedents to continue busting marijuana growers even in states where it's legal and even in cases where it never traveled between states. Ignorance of the law isn't a defense either.

While the Constitution states that that States regulate and govern themselves the federal government has control over interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 if you want to look it up), the fact that they have abused the Constitution doesn't play into your argument, you can't go growing weed with a medical license thinking you're perfectly OK you're horribly mistaken.

You can find out all about the court case that took away even more of our rights, and however unjust it is you shouldn't go telling people it's bullshit on an intellectual basis, that argument won't get you far in court.

Check out the details here: Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kryztina · #7 03-15-2007, 08:33 AM

As for Canadian statute it can be found here.... CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute
As far as I know in Canada medical mari-j growing (individual civilian) is regulated by the gouvernment to some degree....
Cheers folks!

Dankdude · #8 03-15-2007, 10:04 AM

Please give a date when that was ratified.

Even if that article says it does, if has not been ratified then it's not law.

Dankdude · #9 03-15-2007, 10:05 AM

BTW, I happen to know a bit more about Gonzales v. Raich than you do.... I have friends who were directly involved in the case.

entropic · #10 03-15-2007, 11:05 PM

Alright, it was a decision by the Supreme Court of the USA, the highest court in the land, on June 6, 2005 in a 6-3 decision which upheld the Controlled Substances Act which allowed them to continue busting medicinal marijuana growers. I don't know where you're getting this bullshit and if you have friends involved in the case either you or they aren't very well informed on the topic
From the wikipedia page

Quote:

California voters passed Proposition 215 of 1996, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. The United States Federal Government has limited the use of marijuana since the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into effect. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical marijuana, which was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law. Diane Monson grew marijuana in her garden. On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's marijuana plants. The marijuana plants were illegal schedule one drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Angel Raich sued, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.
California was one of nine states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. California's Compassionate Use Act allows limited use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich's physician said that without marijuana, Raich would be in excruciating pain and could die.

The ruling

Quote:

Legal briefs were filed and oral argument occurred on November 29, 2004 (transcript). The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Stevens, was issued on June 6, 2005. It upheld the validity of Controlled Substances Act as an exercise of federal power because Congress "could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." The majority did not address the substantive due process claims raised by the respondents.
The Commerce Clause was the main issue. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce includes power to regulate:

channels of interstate commerce.
instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.
The last of the three was relevant to the issue at hand. The relevant precedents for it are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).

Stevens' opinion for the Court for the Raich decision said that Lopez and Morrison don't apply, since marijuana is a popular part of commerce, and that the Commerce Clause applies whether the commerce is legal or not. According to Stevens, Wickard was the correct precedent to go by. During the American Great Depression, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 imposed quotas on crops including wheat. The farmer Roscoe Filburn produced wheat in excess of the quota, but said the excess wheat was for his own personal consumption and therefore had no effect on interstate commerce. The Court ruled that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" is "commerce" because if he had not grown and consumed it, he would have had to buy it from someone. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat it would affect the interstate market in wheat. This case marked what may be the high water mark of the commerce power. For sixty years—until the Lopez decision—the Supreme Court struck down no law as exceeding the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Like Filburn, Raich and Monson said that their marijuana was only for personal use, and therefore not part of commerce. Stevens said that since the Wickard aggregation principle was valid, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution allowed federal law to override state law.
Although the Court decision for Raich imposed a severe hardship on people in Raich's position, there was a larger issue involved. Congress' power under the Commerce Clause was used for many important pieces of legislation, with the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 as one example out of many. The Court had already reaffirmed some precedents and created others that limit the power of Congress over the states, and increased the power of the Court over Congress. With Raich, the Court declined to go further in that direction.
Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that aimed to differentiate the decision from the controversial results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. Although Scalia voted in favor of limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, he said that his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for the Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason:
“ Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.” Lopez

The Aftermath

Quote:

Both Raich and Monson have indicated their intention to continue using marijuana for medical use in spite of the ruling. Some activists have compared this decision to the Dred Scott case, with the implication that the ruling may have only a temporary impact leading to political reversal.
Two days after the ruling, the International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board "welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for 'medical' use, should be prohibited." INCB President Hamid Ghodse noted, "Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems," referring to the drug's Schedule I status under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [8].
In Congress, in order to counter the adverse effect of this ruling on patients and caretakers, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduce a bill to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients. [9] This effort has not yet succeed, as most members of Congress voted against the bill. [10]

Now show me where the feds have come across a grow and left it there....