It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rules against pot for sick people.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AmpIrGxo4_SZhhsAsxmtZfKsjA4A;_ylu=X3o'___'BiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUC Ul

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

in anicase, those who are sick should be legally marijuanized
. which i meant in ani state in ani part of the country they can do wat was prescribed by their doctors as long as its for their own use for their health and not for kids or adults that just want to get high.




posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
in anicase, those who are sick should be legally marijuanized


Great new coin of phrase!



which i meant in ani state in ani part of the country they can do wat was prescribed by their doctors as long as its for their own use for their health and not for kids or adults that just want to get high.


Hey BUSTER, WE have rights, too!



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: deltaboy

Not any more!

www.latimes.com...

CONGRESS QUIETLY ENDS FEDERAL BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
"Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy.

"The bill's passage over the weekend marks the first time Congress has approved nationally significant legislation backed by legalization advocates. It brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.

"Under the provision, states where medical pot is legal would no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations. Agents would be prohibited from doing so."

(NOTE: I'm not a marijuana fan, but there does seem to be a significant benefit for certain medical conditions. And Big Pharma is taking too long trying to isolate the medical-benefit chemicals from the THC.

(Plus, I'm sure our DEA and other law enforcement have worse illegal drugs to investigate, than going after a few pot plants.)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: deltaboy
in anicase, those who are sick should be legally marijuanized
. which i meant in ani state in ani part of the country they can do wat was prescribed by their doctors as long as its for their own use for their health and not for kids or adults that just want to get high.


First off, learn to use the external quote tags.

Second, what's wrong with adults wanting to get high just for the hell of it? Is that somehow worse than adults wanting to get drunk for the hell of it?



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: deltaboy

nah nah nah nah nah-nah nah nah nah nah nah-nah



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: deltaboy
news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AmpIrGxo4_SZhhsAsxmtZfKsjA4A;_ylu=X3o'___'BiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUC Ul

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

in anicase, those who are sick should be legally marijuanized
. which i meant in ani state in ani part of the country they can do wat was prescribed by their doctors as long as its for their own use for their health and not for kids or adults that just want to get high.


There not allowed to prosecute people for any offence Gods Law is the law that the courts have to go by this is the highest law in our world and states that all humans are equal,
when you go into court or are arrested by a police officer all you do is not give your name be polite and get the police to get your lawyer you will be released from police custody you then turn up in court,
by not giving your name you are not giving the judge authority over you therefore he cannot sentence you.
the judge is only allowed to ask you twice for your name if he asks you 3 times he is breaking the law.

This is how the world works i'm not going to get into a discussion with people about whether this is right or not this is true and that is final just try it.
edit on 17-12-2014 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: deltaboy

screw the courts on this, they are wrong and I aint gonna listen to their bs any more.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

First off, learn to use the external quote tags.


Date man, 2005.

a reply to: EastCoastKid

Sometimes names last forever.. Then you wonder Where tf are these people..



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: deltaboy

So congress cuts funding to the feds when it comes to pursueing MJ and these morons still rule in their favor and are now going to go after doctors for describing a medicine they dont like?

So whens the rebellion start?



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

They must fire weapons in an EXTREMELY obvious way in a large event,NOT involving skin or politics.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join