Justice Goes to Pot: Overcoming a flawed medical-marijuana policy

National Review Online ^ | November 05, 2003 | Clay S. Conrad

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=124) ping

[farmfriend]

ping

[newgeezer]

When Little Dick Durbin is 'for' something, that something just has to be bad.

[MrLeRoy]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[robertpaulsen]

Looks as though Little Dickie and his pathetic, whiney, frustrated liberal friends have found a way to get what they couldn't get through the ballot box or the federal appeals courts. If medical marijuana is so great, dickie-boy, why doesn't your own state legalize it?

They're being tried in federal court, dickie-boy! They're in violation of federal law, dickie-boy! I suggest, dickie-boy, that you acquaint yourself with Article VI of the United States Constitution, which you've sworn to uphold, which states that "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby ..."

Dick Durbin, Sam Farr, and every co-sponsor of this bill should be tried for treason. It is a deliberate subversion of the U.S. Constitution.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[jmc813]

Dick Durbin, Sam Farr, and every co-sponsor of this bill should be tried for treason. It is a deliberate subversion of the U.S. Constitution.

Should President Bush be tried for treason if he signs the Assault Weapons Ban, or are you just being dramatic?

[Sir Gawain]

Why was this moved to the Backroom? I see no flamewar here.

[ellery]

Interesting. This is one solution to the conflict between federal power grabs and amendment 10. I don't know why it's restricted to medical marijuana -- if they're going to make this a relevant issue in courts, it should apply to all state/federal law conflicts.

I would prefer to see Congress repeal everything not in line with the 10th amendment, though.

[dread78645]

Most legal commentators agree Judge Breyer made the technically correct call. Under traditional notions of relevance, if a fact does not make an element of the crime (i.e., growing marijuana) more or less likely, it is irrelevant.

An acknowledged expert in growing hemp, deputized by the city of Oakland, and approved by the state to grow and distribute marijuana.

Yet this fact doesn't mean Ed Rosenthal might be more likely to grow hemp?

(slowly shaking head ...)

[vin-one]

Federal prosecutors say if these bills pass and juries learn that marijuana involved in a case is for medical use, they will commit "jury nullification of the law" — acquitting plainly guilty criminals.

RP what part of the above lines from the article strike you as being off base
I always thought that juries were supposed to get all the evidence
seems like the fed's want to limit a juries information,
what ever happened to a fair trial?

[Conservative Me]

I fail to see why medical marajuana upsets so many people. Why is using it worse than using Oxycotin? Using it as a treatment for pain in terminal patients, or to help those undergoing chemotherapy to eat without vomitting is not such a bad thing, IMO. Are they afraid it is a stepping-stone for legalizing for mainstream use?

[robertpaulsen]

"I always thought that juries were supposed to get all the relevent evidence."

They're talking about federal trials. Little Dickie want to introduce into federal court the fact that medical marijuana is "legal" in that particular state where the federal trial is being held.

His hope, with this legislation, is that the juries will then ignore federal law and acquit the guily party.

What is interesting, as ellery points out, is that this legislation is directed at medical marijuana cases only.

[robertpaulsen]

Hey, how come this legislation doesn't also apply to state/federal conflicts on firearms laws?

Why aren't you joining ellery in questioning this selective legislation?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Most legal commentators agree Judge Breyer made the technically correct call. Under traditional notions of relevance, if a fact does not make an element of the crime (i.e., growing marijuana) more or less likely, it is irrelevant.

Lawyers, a question if you please: I realize that words have different meanings in a legal sense than they do in everyday usage, but how can the reason why someone's doing something always be irrelevant to the action of doing it? It makes more sense when you consider a guy sticking up a grocery store to pay for Jenny Lee's new braces, but is it always such a hard-and-fast rule?

[robertpaulsen]

"An acknowledged expert in growing hemp"

I ask you, how does one become an "expert" in an illegal activity? And this was before he was hired by the City of Oakland.

"deputized by the city of Oakland"

Rosenthal was deputized as a City of Oakland official, that's all. This means he was a city official, not some sheriff's deputy. I know you didn't say that he was, but I just wanted to clarify his standing.

and approved by the state to grow and distribute marijuana.

So what? He knew, the City of Oakland knew, the State of California knew it was against federal law. He violated federal law and was convicted in federal court of doing so by a jury of his peers. The fact that this was legal under state law does not make it more or less likely for him to violate federal law -- two different things.

What if the State of California allowed Rosenthal to keep slaves? Would that fact be relevent in a federal trial concerning a violation of the 13th amendment?

[robertpaulsen]

"Are they afraid it is a stepping-stone for legalizing for mainstream use?"

Medical marijuana is a scam. It is being used as a stepping-stone for the total legalization of marijuana, and advocates have said just that.

Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, which means, "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

Smoking marijuana for medical use is not endorsed by any medical organization for any illness, be it pain, MS, AIDS, cancer, nausea, glaucoma, whatever.

Does it provide "relief"? I'm sure it does. So does heroin. But there are other drugs that do it better with less side affects.

[robertpaulsen]

I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on FR), but I think the reason becomes relevent during sentencing, after guilt has been determined.

This is similar to a defendant's criminal history -- his past record is not relevent when determining guilt, but is relevent during sentencing (ie, the three strikes law).