Montana: Medical Marijuana Approved

The Billings Gazette ^ | November 3, 2004 | Allison Farrell

[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.

[tacticalogic]

If it is a conservative issue, why is Soros funding it?

If Soros is a socialist, as he says why is he funding it? The most socialist governments you can find will have the strictest drug laws. If it is a liberal issue, why did the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation write the DARE program? They were major players in Hillary's Health Care Task Force, and they ponied up a half million dollars for the airtime to broadcast her Health Care Town Hall Meetings uninterrupted. They're also big proponents of gun control and pioneered the idea that gun ownership is a "health care issue" and want doctors to ask their patients if they own guns, they want that to be part of their medical record, and they want the government to have access to all your medical records. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and Soros is a crackpot to start with.

You have to think for yourself. If you just reflexively do the opposite of what Soros does, then you're letting him think for you, and taking a contrarian position.

[tacticalogic]

The more I read these threads, the more I wonder if Soros really cares about pot legalization. The important question here is not wheather Montana made the right decision, but wheather it was their decision to make. Centralized control is critical to the socialists and globalists advancing their agenda. Whatever control the States retain for themselves is off limits to Congress, and therefore to the UN. Only Congress can sign UN treaties and enforce their provisions on us, and they cannot do by treaty what is denied them by the Constitution. What seems to be happening is that there are a lot of "social conservatives" who are willing to lose that war in order to win this battle.

[robertpaulsen]

"entirely intrastate, non-commercial activity could be controlled and even banned by the federal government,"

"Entirely intrastate"? Only if it "substantially affects" interstate commerce, Chicken Little, and only if that interstate commerce is regulated. BTW, the USSC allowed Congress to regulate intrastate shipping rates 20 years before FDR [The Shreveport Rate Cases (1914)].

First of all, the Commerce Clause says nothing about "interstate" or "intrastate" -- it says, "among the several states". So let's not get all huffy about some constitutional distinction that's only in your mind.

Second, just because Congress has the power to regulate commerce doesn't mean they have to or they should. I think your argument is more that Congress shouldn't be regulating marijuana at the federal level rather than they constitutionally aren't allowed ('cause they are).

Third, use common sense. 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"?

"It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'
-- Justice Hughes, The Shreveport Rate Cases

[WildTurkey]

Do you have a source for the above? One that is not paid for by Soros?

[WildTurkey]

The more I read these threads, the more I wonder if Soros really cares about pot legalization.

I guess if you spend $50+ million, you care.

[tacticalogic]

The Shreveport Rate Cases

Was Filburn an interstate carrier?

[robertpaulsen]

He's quoting the old arguments made back in the early 1930's. I guess he thinks those same arguments are being made today!

Otherwise, why would he post them?

[tacticalogic]

I guess if you spend $50+ million, you care.

And what are the consequences if you guess wrong?

[robertpaulsen]

"Was Filburn an interstate carrier?"

Mr. Filburn was engaged in interstate commerce, yes. Mr. Filburn was more than happy to accept the government's money.

"During 1941 producers who cooperated with the Agricultural Adjustment program received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel."
-- Wickard v Filburn

But Mr. Filburn then got greedy. He decided to scam the system ("You go, Mr. Filburn", yells our resident anarchist, tacticalogic).

Now, he was allowed to grow wheat for personal use -- he was simply required to pay a penalty of $.49 a bushel. He refused. ("Yay!", says our resident anarchist).

[evets]

MONTANA
I might be movin' to Montana soon Just to raise me up a crop of Dental Floss Raisin' it up Waxen it down In a little white box That I can sell uptown By myself I wouldn't Have no boss, But I'd be raisin' my lonely Dental Floss Raisin' my lonely Dental Floss
Frank Zappa

[tacticalogic]

Mr. Filburn was engaged in interstate commerce, yes. Mr. Filburn was more than happy to accept the government's money.

That's not what I asked. Was Filburn an interstate carrier, an "instrument of interstate commerce" under direct control of the ICC?

"by reason of their control of the carriers....."

[TKDietz]

"I have no intention of paying for that treatment."

You'd rather pay thousands to get each of these people convicted and then pay $30,000 a year each to support them in prison for several years so that when they get out 70% of them can be rearrested again on new felony charges within three years. That's false economy, rp.

I don't like handout programs. But sometimes we do need to make an investment in our citizens. It's like an insurance policy to protect us all from having to pay out the nose to investigate, arrest, convict and incarcerate people over and over again, not to mention the costs we incur by having all of these addicts loose on our streets between arrests. Drug courts, heavily monitored probation with drug testing and other similar programs cost a heck of a lot less than prison but done right these programs are far more effective than prison at getting people off drugs and leading productive lives. They aren't just slaps on the wrist like the suspended sentences that in reality we end up having to give to most busted with drugs because it would be too expensive to go to the trouble of convicting and incarcerating them. I deal with these people all the time and almost none of them would take drug court over a fine and a suspended sentence. I've had some opt for a short prison term rather than have to go through the drug court program.

And Robert, AA and NA are good programs, but they aren't enough for most hardcore addicts heavily into the drugs. After they dry out and clear their heads a little going to meetings can be a big help to them. But even for those seeking out treatment on their own initiative first most need to either spend some time drying out somewhere where they don't have easy access to drugs or at least they need to be drug tested frequently to keep them honest during that most vulnerable period when they are fighting off overpowering withdrawal symptoms. Addicts in the criminal justice system who in most cases are not seeking treatment on their own initiative stand a much better chance at getting off the drugs if they are drug tested constantly for a year or more and forced under threat of increasing sanctions for each screw up to stay off the drugs, get away from people who use and sell them, work, and lead normal lives. Many of them start to realize after their heads start to clear that the other way of living is much better than the way they lived before and they stay off the drugs after being released from the system and continue to build on the foundation for living they began while in the program. Contrast that with people who get out of prison with no jobs, no prospects, no non drug using friends, and no experience living as productive non drug using citizens. Those who have worked the program have a head start at living productive lives and their records have been expunged so they can get good jobs. They are much less likely to continue with a life of crime than ex cons who in reality are often much worse people when they get out of prison.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The pot smokers are devoid of any common sense.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Why not fight like hell to drop the public smoking ban on cigarettes. I honestly believe that alot of people who want to legalize marijuana are the same people who wanted to ban cigarette smoking in public, or suffer from lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking. Meanwhile, the lung cancer victims sue the tobacco companies and everyone ends up footing the bill.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I might be movin' to Montana

Just don't bring any of your dingbat liberal friends with you. I certainly don't want Montana to turn into California.

[tacticalogic]

I honestly believe that alot of people who want to legalize marijuana are the same people who wanted to ban cigarette smoking in public

Could be. I honestly believe they're doing it to stir you up so you'll agree to let them ban cigarettes (and anything else they want) if it means you get to keep the ban on pot.

[robertpaulsen]

Your robertpaulsen/marijuana-thread detector still works, I see.

Post #37 was about marijuana and "treat(ing) drug addiction like a medical problem". You then come back with this ... this hard-core drug use/$30,000 per year cost/yearly drug testing/productive citizens screed that is just a little overboard?

We're talking marijuana (I thought we were). We're talking marijuana users. We're talking drug addiction. Let's stay within those parameters.

Now, I'm simply saying that the poster would be hard pressed to get anyone on this board who smokes marijuana to admit they're addicted, or even admit that marijuana is addicting. So I don't see the connection between marijuana + addiction + medical problem.

If marijuana is not addicting, WTF are we treating?

[Dogrobber]

Precisely how I feel about the issue. Medical marijuana is just a euphemism for "legalizing marijuana for any purpose".

Ok, now how do you feel about marijuana legalization. I am in favor of it because suppression of Marijuana is not worth the effort and the resources should go to suppression of other drugs. If we do it we should also commute the sentences of persons who are in prison for the sole reason of marijuana. (Not pardons, commutations). I am not for marijauna legalization because I am pro-marijuana; I am for it because I just don't think the WOD is worth it for marijuana. Pure, heartless cost benefit calculation.

[robertpaulsen]

And I bet you think the decision in Wickard v Filburn only applies to wheat? C'mon.

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.

[robertpaulsen]

So, if I understand you correctly, if we were to legalize only marijuana (no change for any other drug), you would expect to see a savings? Where? Do you think the feds would reduce the size of the DEA? Would local cops be laid off?

Now, there are alternatives. If we were to decriminalize marijuana (users would be simply fined, like a speeding ticket), you would probably realize 90% of your projected "savings". Why do we have to go to the extreme and legalize in order to save money?