I feel safer already http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijuana.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
But in general I think it is only a matter of personal choice. If a person wants to use drugs he will
Be advised, this is only a publicity stunt (though I think a well meant one) by Angel, and she still is able to smoke pot there in California without worry of the feds. feds only get involved in large grow ops over 100 plants. At least it is getting out the word to people who don't pay attention to the fact that 11 states have legalized it for medicinal purposes but the federal government still refuses to let them feel 100% at ease, and they DO target and shut down the state legal pharmacy's in Southern California so that patients without a farm have no other choice but to buy from the streets or drive a couple hours to LA.
No conventional drugs worked? Not even ones based off of the chemicals found in marijuana, designed to decrease side effects while maximizing medicinal benefits? I find that hard to believe. If I were involved in the case, I'd want it established that she had been given other treatment options based on similar chemical compositions.
cannabinol (the only legal drug in the US that is synthesized THC) is complete crap, and that's easy enough to prove through various studies. And there are many people who can't get relief or safe relief from traditional medications, but the case wasn't decided based on the medical efficacy of smoked marijuana, it was decided that there was no federal constitutional law protecting her right to use an illicit substance to protect her from death or harm when nothing else worked. Although the judges did say there should probably be an ammendment just for that, and it is likely in the near future.
This is more important than just a drug legalization issue, this is an issue of the feds infringing upon states rights. Regardless of any laws you are for or against regarding drugs, they are to be decided by the states.
That is a good point, but the federal government got around that annoying little constitutional law saying what the feds have the right to overrule in state law (which didn't include anything near what you put in your own body) by creating the drug tax stamps, then when that was shown unlawful, they just blatantly trampled on states rights by creating the federal drug scheduling system and enforcing it with the DEA. They were smart too, saying that a schedule I drug can't even be researched without their approval... wouldn't want anyone proving that pot was less harmful then morphine, coke, and meth (all schedule II and easily prescribed by doctors).
So what is the difference between schedule I and schedule II? And upon what are you basing the idea that the drug laws are to be determined by the states?
For Schedule I drugs: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA. As for why drugs laws should legally be determined by the states, it is simply the 10th Ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere is the power to control what drugs we use delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited to the states by it. And now we have states in wich the people have voted for it to be legal to use marijuana for medical purposes, but the United States (federally) still retains the right to prosecute them under federal law.
I'm sure that the Congress would argue it has this power under article I, section 8, paragraph 1, which reads: I added the bold to point out the part that anyone defending congress is likely to use. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I'm sure they'll try to use this area.
Actually, I think that is just refering to the right for the Congress to create enough taxes to provide a strong enough military. The 10th amendment arguement isn't upheld by the courts (as was the case with Angel) because of the "commerce clause" which says that anything dealing with interstate commerce is above the 10th ammendment. It's really ridiculous IMO how far they have taken it because they go so far as to say that a farmer in rural Kansas growing wheat for only himself is affecting interstate commerce because "if he weren't growing it for himself, he'd have to buy it". And even more ridiculously, that was applied to personal medical marijuana growers like Angel. "She was affecting the interstate commerce of marijuana" lol. But anyway, that's how it is, and I doubt that would change without a civil war or something, so what can you do? I think the Scheduling arguement is stronger because there has been clear medical evidence that marijuana has at least SOME medical benifit, and that's all it requires to be moved to Schedule II. There was even a government sponsered research into benefits of marijuana, I think in the 70's, but it was hidden for a long time because it showed there WAS benifit from it. And if you don't believe that, please explain to me why synthetic THC was approved for medical use. If synthetic THC has any medical value, then surely real THC does, even if it is possibly more harmful to your body when it's smoked. But that doesn't factor in when there is a medical benefit. Meth and Cocaine are obviously far more dangerous for your health, and most of the pills doctors prescribe are hard on your liver. You might ask why people aren't happy with a synthetic THC pill, and the answer is that it is only one of the active ingredients found in marijuana. In the plant, there are many which combine to provide different types of relief from different symptoms, depending on the strain of the plant. Many people also believe it is harder on your body then smoking a couple puffs of pot every once in a while, not to mention the insane price of these "THC" pills.
How can you affect interstate commerce if said interstate commerce is illegal? Oy. And personally, there's a lot about the FDA that I don't buy. For example, in my understanding, it is illegal to state that something that is not a drug can diagnose, cure, or treat an illness. This apparently means that it's illegal for me to get up on TV and say that a lime will cure survey... according to the rules of a government agency. No law involved in all that I am aware of. Then again, I've got a backlog of research I need to do on legal matters 5 years deep.
Still, yes, I agree that if it does indeed have research showing it to be medically beneficial, and that's all it needs to be converted to a schedule II drug... then by all means... let's have the change.
Marijuana is not bad (Netherlands have it legal i wish i lived there) The rest cocain heroine is death