Posted on 06/29/2004 7:01:49 PM PDT by neverdem
PING
My mother used marijuana when taking chemo. (DEFINITELY not a druggie, she was a preacher for the Church of God for crying out loud!) The other drugs given for nausea kept her virtually comatose and she couldn't enjoy her time with her family and my kids. Marijuana provided much needed relief from nausea and an appetite to improve her nutritional level during what time she had left, and still left her coherent enough to play games or whatever the kids wanted. It also helped her nerves, which is usually on edge during this treatment.
I am for the RESPONSIBLE use of a valid drug. The same drug that makes morphine is also an illegal drug in street form. But you can't discount the medicinal use of this drug.
Now the possibility of allowing MDs to Rx pot....Ah me, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose ("The more things change, the more they stay the same.")
I am for the responsible use of everything, from guns to cars to drugs. Responsible use doesn't mean prohibition.
Then again, many here would call your mother a druggie, and demand she be thrown in jail on federal charges, because there is no federal recognition of medical marijuana laws, irrespective of the state laws on the subject.
i wish my mom had used it during her cancer treatment. but since it was illegal, she wouldn't. i got to watch her suffer thru the coctail of drugs she took. i wouldn't wish that on anyone... would pot have helped her? i don't know, but i do think her doctor should have the ability to make that decision, not the government.
Remember during the 2000 presidential campaign, when Bush said that medical marijuana was a states' rights issue, and that he would not use the federal government to try to bully states into accepting federal law over the issue?
Given their recent rulings I firmly believe they are personally stoned while hearing cases.
No, I don't. Anyone who does has a truly exceptional memory or is highly attached to the subject. I approve of medical marijuana. I believe the feds will lose when SCOTUS hears the case.
Hard to predict anything with this Court, but I would guess a 5-4 against the feds.
Justice Thomas has said the "substantial effects" test of the Commerce Clause is not correct and that at the very least it needs reexamining.
What is your rationale for thinking USSC will rule against the feds?
It's demonstrated liberal tendency, medically and legally. In the medical sense, I believe it's right. From a practical, legal perpsective, after blithely making their ruling in Lawrence v. Texas tacitly endorsing the homosexual lifestyle, are they now supposed to deny the drug that alleviates "Slim's Disease", i.e. AIDS, as well as the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy when patients can't tolerate pills, not to mention certain patients with chronic pain, multiple sclerosis or glaucoma?
This time the feds are being challenged on the basis that the program does not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore, the feds have no constitutional authority to interfere.
In US vs Lopez, Justice Thomas wrote:
Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined.
If he sticks to his beliefs about substantial effects, he could end up being the swing vote.
I'm no lawyer, but I like your perspective. Say a prayer. Adios
I believe what he said when asked about medical marijuana on the campaign trail was "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose."
Footnote # 3 in http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-151
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=list&p_topdoc=51
That's # 3 on the second set of footnotes near the bottom of the page.
Thanks for the first link. The 2nd link expired.
Is it the mark of a free country when a court determines that a legislative body should make medical decisions? What do we have doctors for, licensed by the state, no less?
Sorry about that. Here are links I googled up to a few articles that use that quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel112601.shtml
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-031219.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/17/column.billpress/
There were 270 hits for that quote on Google.
I have NEVER seen anyone here post such an idea. You are indulging in hyperbole and alarmism.
Licensed by the state to obey state laws. Duh...
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.