Posted on 11/03/2004 1:51:01 PM PST by Wolfie
Medical Marijuana Approved
Helena -- Montanans suffering from certain medical conditions may be able to legally smoke marijuana to ease their symptoms come January 1. The Medical Marijuana Act passed by a 63 to 37 percent margin Tuesday with 375 of 881 precincts reporting. The new act will protect patients, their doctors and their caregivers from state and local arrest and prosecution for the medical use of marijuana.
Teresa Michalski of Helena couldn't be happier. Michalski once lived in fear that her late son, Travis, would spend the last few months of his short life in jail for using marijuana during the last stages of Hodgkin's disease.
"I knew the people in Montana were compassionate and I could count on them," said Michalski, a fifth-generation Montanan.
U.S. Deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns, however, warned Montanans that federal law trumps state law, and said during a recent visit to Montana that no state initiative permitting the medical use of marijuana can circumvent the federal law prohibiting the possession and use of the drug.
"There's no safe harbor," Burns said.
But Paul Befumo, treasurer of the Marijuana Policy Project of Montana, said he's "elated" that the measure passed.
"People don't have to worry about being criminalized any more," he said.
Proponents say smoking marijuana relieves nausea, increases appetite, reduces muscle spasms, relieves chronic pain and reduces pressure in the eyes. It can be used to treat the symptoms of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma, among other diseases, they say.
Medical marijuana has been approved by voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. In Hawaii, a law was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor in 2000. In Vermont, a law was passed by the Legislature and allowed to become law without the governor's signature in May 2004, the Marijuana Policy Project reports.
The Montana measure's campaign was financially backed by the national Marijuana Policy Project out of Washington, D.C.
Oh, BTW, the Shreveport Rate Cases were cited in support of the decision in Wickard v Filburn, so we know our judiciary is not as confused as you.
Who's "we"? Every case cited in the Shreveport decision involved interstate carriers. The court's decision hinges on the railroads status an interstate carrier, and the wording of the decision itself makes that abundantly clear. Wickard v Filburn was a Constitutional atrocity any you're willing to get onboard because you're scared to death of the pot boogeyman, any they've got you conviced big government can save you.
I tell people that it's too cold to grow food in Montana and the mosquitoes carry off small children.
Not forgetting, blizzards, 20 foot snow drifts and the size of the animals crossing the road in front of you. Hoping for a big snow year and that it will send the influx of Californians fleeing back to warmer climes.
Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce only, thereby allowing the states to subvert and undermine Congress' regulatory efforts? What's the point? Why even give Congress the power if the states can do an "end around"?
Paulsen, do you really believe that the Founding Fathers gave our government the power to defend us against infringements of our RKBA's only to allow the states to subvert and undermine those efforts?
What's the point?
Why even give Congress the power if the states like CA can do an "end around" and ban socalled assault weapons?
Have you ever given any thought to your constant contradictions of logic, paulsen?
Money is not the only resource. The time, effort and resources of law enforcement, courts and others to deal with marijuana suppression, even as a "decriminalized" issue are still going to be invested into marijuana control. When you decriminalize a substance that does not mean trafficking in it will become legal. It will still be illegal to grow it and sell it. That diverts resources. Lets just legalize it, regulate it, tax it and forget it.
No, I don't.
I believe that the Founding Fathers restricted the power of the federal government to infringe on our RKBA.
They left it to each state to protect that right, along with free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, a right to an attorney, and any other right the citizens of a particular state wished to protect.
That's called "federalism". Learn your history.
It gets so cold that time stands still! :^)
Grizzly bears with paws 14 inches across! This is true unfortunately. They need the oversize feet to get around in all that snow!
Is he also a large "J" journalist who does some large "R" reflecting about large "H" happy large "D" days?
LOL!
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank creates a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as it is external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a state … which remains exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another state, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes."
-Thomas Jefferson, on establishing a national bank.
Ah, I learn so much from you.
So, Jefferson's arguments against the establishment of a national bank were accepted by Congress and the President? They agreed with his interpretation of the Commerce Clause?
Well, He's Certainly Not a Conservative, Unless You Wish To Make That Case?
Wheather they agreed with it or not is irrelevant. The Founders transferred that power to the Congress, and the nature and limits of that power were fixed at the time of transfer. The Constitution is not a "living document".
"If it is a conservative issue, why is Soros funding it?" Soros spends hundreds of millions of dollars all over the world promoting democracy and capitalism. Does that make democracy and capitalism bad? I don't agree with a lot of the things Soros does either but the fact that Soros spends money on something does not establish the prima facie case that that thing is bad or even liberal as opposed to conservative. Besides, Soros is not the only person funding marijuana legalization initiatives and there were plenty of people out there who thought our marijuana laws were stupid long before Soros ever spent a dime funding any marijuana law reform groups. I've held the belief that marijuana should be legal for more than twenty years and I never even heard of Soros until a couple of years ago. I'm more than a little offended when people try to lump all of those who feel the same way I do about these issues in with George Soros. He's just one of millions and millions out there from various backgrounds with various core beliefs who happen to agree that marijuana should be legal. Just because we agree on that one point does not mean we all agree on everything else.
No, I don't. I believe that the Founding Fathers restricted the power of the federal government to infringe on our RKBA.
Only the feds aye? We the people, citizens of the USA, have no protection from the unconstitutional infringements of a rogue State like CA? -- Bet me.
They left it to each state to protect that right, along with free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, a right to an attorney, and any other right the citizens of a particular state wished to protect.
There you go again with your bizarre theory that our inalienable rights can be infringed upon by States of the Union, who are pledged to uphold the Law of the Land.
That's called "federalism". Learn your history.
I call your anti-constitutional concepts by harsher names, but you call such opinions 'abuse'. Got anyone banned lately?
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.