Monthly Podiums?
- Thread starter Cyrano
- Start date
Ok, here's one... *PIC*
Medical Marijuana - Just Say Know!
by Marcus K. Dalton
Angel McClary Raich is seriously ill. Diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor and several complicating conditions, Raich found traditional medical treatments to be of little use. Having exhausted every legal alternative, her doctor recommended that she try marijuana and it worked. Raich found that marijuana alleviated her symptoms substantially.
And, under California law, Raich can possess and use marijuana pursuant to a doctor's prescription or recommendation.
Yet according to the federal government, even such minimal marijuana possession approved by a doctor remains illegal.
Fearing potential prosecution, Raich went to federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other things, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to prohibit simple marijuana possession for personal medical use. Represented by noted libertarian Randy Barnett, Raich argued that, at least as applied to her situation, the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is unconstitutional.
On behalf of Raich, Professor Barnett argued that the cultivation and possession of marijuana 'solely for the personal medical use of seriously ill individuals, as recommended by their physician and authorized by State law' is simply beyond the reach of federal power. Under our constitutional structure, states retain 'broad powers to define criminal law, regulate medical practice, and protect the lives of their citizens.'
Federal power, on the other hand, is limited to the specific grant of enumerated powers in the Constitution, and does not reach mundane questions of criminal law. No matter how worthy the purpose of a given federal statute, it remains invalid if it exceeds the constitutionally proscribed bounds.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in her case, Ashcroft v. Raich.
It's good to know that the federal government is being vigilant when it comes to the really dangerous people: those unrepentant chronic-pain patients who viciously insist on using marijuana to relieve their suffering. In last week's 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws supersede the laws several states have passed in recent years legalizing the production and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Apparently, the actions of a sick woman in California growing pot in her basement for her medical needs affect ''interstate commerce," which means that the Constitution says it's all right to bring in the feds.
Sick people pose no threat, so why make them suffer?
I've got that all-over tingly feeling not felt since Martha Stewart was put away and America's mean streets made safe again.
Thank G-D we've got that particular homeland security problem under control. In the age of terror, one can never be too careful with dying people who have nothing left to lose.
The high court's decision, in fact, had little to do with whether suffering people deserve relief, but whether the federal government has authority over states that have authorized medical marijuana use. To date, 11 states have such laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
While lawyers hash out the legal intricacies, normal people are left wondering whether the Supreme Court has been partaking of the evil weed. Exceptions would be dissenters Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. After all, who gets hurt when dying or sick people smoke pot?
It seems remote to ridiculous that federal agents now will start arresting sick people for getting high, although stranger things can and do happen.
Ironically, the Supreme Court ruling follows a study by Harvard professor Jeffrey Miron recommending that the United States legalize and tax marijuana. Endorsed by some 500 economists, including Milton Friedman, the report noted the high cost of marijuana prohibition - about $7.7 billion annually - and the boon to the economy that an estimated $6.2 billion per year in taxes would provide.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the court's decision, offered a glimmer of hope when he noted that Congress could change the law to allow for medicinal uses of marijuana. By any measure, such a legal shift is long overdue and likely would be hugely popular.
MSNBC's Web site conducted an unscientific poll on Monday, posting this question: "Should the federal government prosecute medical marijuana users, now that it has been given the OK by the Supreme Court?" By midday, 88 percent of the 63,000 people who had chosen to respond said "no." Ten percent said "yes," and 2 percent weren't sure. Don't worry, two-percenters. It wears off in about three hours, and then you can make up your mind.
More than 60 U.S. and international health organizations, including the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, support allowing sick people to use marijuana under a doctor's care, according to the marijuana advocacy group NORML. Others, including the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, favor more research into the medical uses of marijuana, according to NORML.
As absurd as the ruling on Monday seems, advocates for medical marijuana are not optimistic that Congress will have the courage to pass more reasonable marijuana laws. Which raises the question: Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?
What's more conservative, after all, than getting the federal government out of private, victimless, state-sanctioned decisions? And what's more compassionate than letting a woman with brain cancer feel a little less tortured during her final days?
Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate how compassionate conservatism works by passing a recently reintroduced bipartisan measure: the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (House Resolution 2087). Defeated previously, the act would change marijuana's classification so that doctors could prescribe it under certain circumstances without altering current laws related to recreational use.
Thanks to the triumph of common sense over Prohibition, I can at least drink to that.
-------------------------------
Marcus K. Dalton is the Managing Editor of the Las Vegas Tribune.
Medical Marijuana - Just Say Know!
by Marcus K. Dalton
Angel McClary Raich is seriously ill. Diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor and several complicating conditions, Raich found traditional medical treatments to be of little use. Having exhausted every legal alternative, her doctor recommended that she try marijuana and it worked. Raich found that marijuana alleviated her symptoms substantially.
And, under California law, Raich can possess and use marijuana pursuant to a doctor's prescription or recommendation.
Yet according to the federal government, even such minimal marijuana possession approved by a doctor remains illegal.
Fearing potential prosecution, Raich went to federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other things, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to prohibit simple marijuana possession for personal medical use. Represented by noted libertarian Randy Barnett, Raich argued that, at least as applied to her situation, the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is unconstitutional.
On behalf of Raich, Professor Barnett argued that the cultivation and possession of marijuana 'solely for the personal medical use of seriously ill individuals, as recommended by their physician and authorized by State law' is simply beyond the reach of federal power. Under our constitutional structure, states retain 'broad powers to define criminal law, regulate medical practice, and protect the lives of their citizens.'
Federal power, on the other hand, is limited to the specific grant of enumerated powers in the Constitution, and does not reach mundane questions of criminal law. No matter how worthy the purpose of a given federal statute, it remains invalid if it exceeds the constitutionally proscribed bounds.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in her case, Ashcroft v. Raich.
It's good to know that the federal government is being vigilant when it comes to the really dangerous people: those unrepentant chronic-pain patients who viciously insist on using marijuana to relieve their suffering. In last week's 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws supersede the laws several states have passed in recent years legalizing the production and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Apparently, the actions of a sick woman in California growing pot in her basement for her medical needs affect ''interstate commerce," which means that the Constitution says it's all right to bring in the feds.
Sick people pose no threat, so why make them suffer?
I've got that all-over tingly feeling not felt since Martha Stewart was put away and America's mean streets made safe again.
Thank G-D we've got that particular homeland security problem under control. In the age of terror, one can never be too careful with dying people who have nothing left to lose.
The high court's decision, in fact, had little to do with whether suffering people deserve relief, but whether the federal government has authority over states that have authorized medical marijuana use. To date, 11 states have such laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
While lawyers hash out the legal intricacies, normal people are left wondering whether the Supreme Court has been partaking of the evil weed. Exceptions would be dissenters Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. After all, who gets hurt when dying or sick people smoke pot?
It seems remote to ridiculous that federal agents now will start arresting sick people for getting high, although stranger things can and do happen.
Ironically, the Supreme Court ruling follows a study by Harvard professor Jeffrey Miron recommending that the United States legalize and tax marijuana. Endorsed by some 500 economists, including Milton Friedman, the report noted the high cost of marijuana prohibition - about $7.7 billion annually - and the boon to the economy that an estimated $6.2 billion per year in taxes would provide.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the court's decision, offered a glimmer of hope when he noted that Congress could change the law to allow for medicinal uses of marijuana. By any measure, such a legal shift is long overdue and likely would be hugely popular.
MSNBC's Web site conducted an unscientific poll on Monday, posting this question: "Should the federal government prosecute medical marijuana users, now that it has been given the OK by the Supreme Court?" By midday, 88 percent of the 63,000 people who had chosen to respond said "no." Ten percent said "yes," and 2 percent weren't sure. Don't worry, two-percenters. It wears off in about three hours, and then you can make up your mind.
More than 60 U.S. and international health organizations, including the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, support allowing sick people to use marijuana under a doctor's care, according to the marijuana advocacy group NORML. Others, including the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, favor more research into the medical uses of marijuana, according to NORML.
As absurd as the ruling on Monday seems, advocates for medical marijuana are not optimistic that Congress will have the courage to pass more reasonable marijuana laws. Which raises the question: Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?
What's more conservative, after all, than getting the federal government out of private, victimless, state-sanctioned decisions? And what's more compassionate than letting a woman with brain cancer feel a little less tortured during her final days?
Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate how compassionate conservatism works by passing a recently reintroduced bipartisan measure: the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (House Resolution 2087). Defeated previously, the act would change marijuana's classification so that doctors could prescribe it under certain circumstances without altering current laws related to recreational use.
Thanks to the triumph of common sense over Prohibition, I can at least drink to that.
-------------------------------
Marcus K. Dalton is the Managing Editor of the Las Vegas Tribune.
err, uhh...
While I think your writing is excellent (do you need to be told that?), I think the purpose of the podium is to discuss a matter related to advantage gaming. Legalizing pot doesn't seem to be quite in that jurisdiction.
If you want to write something for a podium, please just send me the text via email and I will post it in the "podium" section of this site.
Thanks,
--Mayor
While I think your writing is excellent (do you need to be told that?), I think the purpose of the podium is to discuss a matter related to advantage gaming. Legalizing pot doesn't seem to be quite in that jurisdiction.
If you want to write something for a podium, please just send me the text via email and I will post it in the "podium" section of this site.
Thanks,
--Mayor
Not quite what we had in mind *LINK*
I know you don't want to give away any good games you're currently exploiting, but how about something on either general low stakes tips for downtown LV games, or a "how to get started" piece on ace tracking?
Actually, any subject from you related to advantage gambling would be appreciated.
Your choice.
Cheers,
Barfarkel
I know you don't want to give away any good games you're currently exploiting, but how about something on either general low stakes tips for downtown LV games, or a "how to get started" piece on ace tracking?
Actually, any subject from you related to advantage gambling would be appreciated.
Your choice.
Cheers,
Barfarkel
