Posted on 11/26/2005 5:10:56 AM PST by JTN
The federal war on medi-pot patients hit a new low last month when Royal Canadian Mounted Police nabbed 38-year-old Steven W. Tuck from his Vancouver, B.C., hospital bed, whisked him to the border, and relinquished him to the custody of U.S. officials, who wanted him on charges related to a 2001 marijuana bust in California. Tuck, an Army vet, uses marijuana to help treat chronic pain associated with injuries he received in a parachuting accident back in the 1980s (reportedly his parachute failed to open during a jump). In 2001, after his marijuana-growing operation in California was busted, Tuck fled to Canada in an effort to avoid prosecution, reports The Washington Post. For four years, he had been navigating the Canadian system, seeking asylum, but was abruptly, and surprisingly, denied that safe harbor last month, says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML.
Police arrested Tuck on Oct. 7 after he checked himself into a Vancouver hospital seeking treatment for prostate problems. According to friend Richard Cowan, Tuck was on a gurney, fitted with a catheter, when RCMP nabbed him, cuffed him, and put him in an SUV bound for the border. "I would not believe it unless I had seen it," Cowan told the Post.
Tuck was turned over to authorities and thrown in jail, where he remained for five days with the catheter in place and with only ibuprofen for his pain pain for which he'd been prescribed morphine and Oxycontin, among other narcotic drugs, says St. Pierre. He was finally taken to court on Oct. 12. "This is totally inhumane," Tuck's lawyer Douglas Hiatt told the Post. "He's been tortured for days for no reason." U.S. Magistrate James P. Donohue re-leased Tuck, at least temporarily, so that he could be taken to a hospital. Tuck's trip to the hospital was waylaid, however, by law enforcement officials who immediately picked him up on a detainer issued by Humboldt Co., Calif., officials in connection with state drug charges related to his growing medi-pot for him-self and others. (Although Tuck is a California state-registered medi-pot patient meaning he's authorized under state law to possess and grow marijuana for medical purposes he was also growing for others. At the time, California law enforcers were working under a patchwork of local regulations that defined who could grow for dispensary purposes and exactly how much each person could grow. Tuck had been busted in two different California jurisdictions for growing more than the local law allowed.)
After a flurry of phone calls, Tuck was taken to the hospital, and since then his attorneys have negotiated his release from jail with the promise that he'll make his various California state court appearances. Sources tell "Weed Watch" that given Tuck's medical condition and the current state of California's medi-pot laws, his supporters are cautiously optimistic that the state charges against him will be dropped. If that happens, whether Tuck will face any prosecution will be left solely up to the feds, who want him on one count of unlawful flight to Canada to avoid the California charges. Whether the federal narcos will exercise their right to bully the sick remains to be seen.
And behind "Door #3" is...the upcoming distraction, misdirection and or obfuscation of the topic.
I am not Catholic. I am a non-denominational Christian.
True enough. Actually the comment was aimed at Philman_36.
I think many would disagree that pot lowers the sex drive.:)
This article is dated yesterday. I did a search under keyword "wodlist" and didn't see anything, so I posted.
He wasn't invoking the Nazis in an argument, he was merely addressing you properly.
Glad you have such an inside track to God's intentions.
The real thread topic is: does the federal government have the right to enforce drug laws, even when drug dealers and libertarian fools who buy their propaganda think they don't?
So tell us....do they?
You've YET to answer any direct question asked by myself or anyone else on this thread.
You make outlandish statements, try to change the subject when backed into a corner, contradict yourself, and source NOTHING to back your assertions. When you question the intelligence of some of the more (obviously) intelligent posters, you only make your argument weaker and yourself look foolish.
I will make this very simple so even you can understand-
Where SPECIFIALLY does the government get it's authority to tell the PEOPLE what they can possess or ingest?
Hint; ...it's not in the Commerce Clause-
_____________________________________
Thomas Jefferson, on February 15, 1791, wrote that the ICC "does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State...but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes."
_____________________________________
OR the general welfare clause-
_____________________________________
They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please ... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
_____________________________________
Government can only exercise what it as been expressly given, so where exactly does this 'regulatory power' come from?
"Glaucoma? It borders on malpractice to give marijuana for glaucoma. While it can reduce intraocular pressure (with huge doses of pot), it also can constrict blood supply to the optic nerve, exacerbating vision problems. There are far safer and better drugs."
-- Pot as Medicine, Washington Post, February 7, 1997)
"IQ is precious; there's a shortage of it in the world. Why waste it?"
Because the world needs restaurant workers.
Suicide is legal, murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc, is not. How did they die?
Killing another by drunk driving, which is itself contains elements of multiple crimes, doesn't mean alcohol should be illegal or is intrinsically malum in se.
Darwinism is a vehicle for atheism and materialism.Unfortunately, the author is right that far too many Christians think this way. It's too bad, because it just gives many people the impression that Christians are a bunch of unscientific hillbillies.Newsflash: Charles Darwin was a Christian. The Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran World Federation, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have all issued statements that evolutionary science is not incompatible with the basic tenets of religious faith. In Catholic schools, evolution has been taught for years, with no fuss, as part of the science curriculum.
Anyway, I don't mean to hijack this thread. Please continue with the drug war posting.
We're stating that God is an artist who takes his time. Doesn't it make your personal worth far greater to know that He took 17 billion years to make you out of the stuff of the big bang?
In the immortal words of St. Devo: "God made man and he used the monkey to do it." -- Jocko Homo, from the ARE WE NOT MEN album.
And...Is that where the expression "monkeying around with G_d" comes from? (that one is more a joke than a real question) As I queried before..."Isn't that a contradiction?" >
No. It's a contradiction to be a "literalist fundamentalist" and an evolutionist. Not all Christians are literalist fundamentalists.
I don't want to get too deeply into this here. Suffice to say that I am not a biblical inerrantist. Also, the idea that the creation account in Genesis is allegorical is at least as old as St. Augustine.
How did they die? >>>
Negligent homicide, involving motor vehicles poorly operated because of stoned operator (or in one case a stoned pedestrian).
and it may be a nominal "felony,">>>
Have you ever been inside a federal prison? That ain't nominal, it's as real as a kick in the butt.
Wow, what a really hateful and contemptible thing to say! He might have kids yet, or he might have never wanted kids. I can see how you think you have the moral compass that should steer others.
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.