Tuesday, June 7, 2005

Karen Tandy is a sick, sick individual In the wake of the Raich ruling, the Wisconsin State Journal featured a counterpoint-style article with the question: "Medical Marijuana: Should it be legal?" On the "Yes" side is the fabulous Gary Storck - a prominent reform leader in Wisconsin. On the "No" side is the head of the DEA, Karen Tandy. (I've written about her before.) Tandy said a lot of ridiculous stuff, as usual, but ended with saying that we need to stop the "myths" about medical marijuana "before the myths kill any more people." Tell you what, Karen. I will show you the graves of people the DEA has killed. Can you produce the ones that medical marijuana has killed? How dare you? Over and over again marijuana has been proven safer than just about any other drug prescribed by doctors. It helps sick people. Proven. While your reign of terror has caused destruction throughout the world. Don't you dare lecture to us about prevent killing, you death-monger. [- Thanks to Andy] 8:32:30 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Rhode Island Gives Finger to the Supremes Fascinating! From MPP: The Rhode Island Senate today passed medical marijuana bill S.B. 710 by a 34-2 margin. The vote signals support for medical marijuana after Monday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of states to pass medical marijuana laws, but also affirmed the right of the federal government to prosecute patients under federal law. [...] "In light of the Supreme Court's decision, it's more important than ever that states pass medical marijuana laws," said Neal Levine, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, based in Washington, D.C. "Rhode Island lawmakers have demonstrated that the Supreme Court decision does not prevent states from protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest." 34-2. The day after the Supreme Court decision. Maybe the Hinchey amendment in the U.S. Congress (to prevent using federal funds to harrass sick people) has a chance. Time to apply pressure. 8:15:55 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

No more excuses This is a rallying call, and it's one challenge we're ready to meet. Radley is right. Consider this a challenge. If you blogged about Raich today, give us at least three posts a week for the next three months aimed at making Hinchey-Rohrabacher and the Truth in Trials Act law. Let's find out what Congressmen are standing in either bill's way. Let's shame them. Let's pursuade those on the fence to come down off of it. If you lean Republican, and your Congressman is a GOPer who has voted against bills like these, explain their hypocrisy to them. Ask them what happened to federalism, the Tenth Amendment, and the right of states to set their own rules and policies when it comes to medical treatment. I'll take the pledge. And for those of you who aren't bloggers? Same thing goes. Here's how you can find out how your Congressperson voted in 2003 and 2004 (An 'Aye' vote is good -- means stop spending federal money to harrass patients in states where medical marijuana has been legalized by the state. A 'No' vote means to continue to go after medical marijuana patients.) Once you find out, write them and either encourage them to continue voting Aye or change from No to Aye. If they voted No in the past, also write a letter to your paper, wondering why your Congressperson wants to waste your community's tax dollars by going after sick people in California, and encourage a change in vote. Or, if you live in California or one of the medical marijuana states, ask why your Congressperson doesn't care about the laws and the will of the people of their own state -- do they care more about Washington DC than [your local town]? We've waited for too many months hoping for the Supreme Court to solve our problems with Congress' Reefer Madness. We have to make it clear now that we will no longer allow them to act this way -- and we need the active and loud support of ordinary people. We also need to continue to apply pressure on the re-scheduling efforts (which includes peripheral efforts like ASA's challenge of HHS under the Data Quality Act). This is particularly important since the Raich decision did leave some potential warnings by the court... Again from Radley, via Mark Moller at Cato: Stevens, in footnote 37, suggests that "evidence proferred by respondents . . . if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I." I think that's a clear signal to lower courts to give a serious hearing to any medical marijuana proponents seeking review of a DEA reclassification hearing under the current Controlled Substances Act--and a warning to the DEA to take those arguments seriously. Interesting. And while I'm touting Radley's coverage of Raich (which has been outstanding), I've got to say that I agree with his criticism of Raich coverage from portions of the left. Shameful. 2:25:48 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

USA Today Editorial COURT'S RULING ON MARIJUANA REEKS OF 'REEFER MADNESS' ... The Court's 6-3 decision was a stretched interpretation of the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Under Monday's ruling, growing marijuana at home for medicinal purposes, with no money changing hands, is somehow now a form of interstate commerce. It makes you wonder what the majority was smoking. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissenting opinion, "If Congress can regulate this ... under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything." That warning ought to be a rallying cry for conservative members of Congress elected under the banner of small government and respect for states rights. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court's majority, told Monson, Raich and anyone in a similar fix that their recourse is to get Congress to change the 1970 federal law that bans possession or distribution of marijuana. Given the "reefer madness" in Washington that has led to an overemphasis on marijuana prosecutions in the war on drugs, the prospects for early congressional action seem remote. In the meantime, surely federal prosecutors and drug-control agents have better things to do than to swoop down on critically ill people who are abiding by state law and haul them off to court. 1:56:07 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []