Bush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Laws - GoFuckYourself.com

ThunderBalls · 08-11-2003, 11:46 PM

Proving once again a vote in this country is meaningless.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...CTION=POLITICS

<h4>Bush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Laws</h4>

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California and other states that want to make marijuana available to sick or dying patients are flouting federal drug laws in much the same way that Southern states defied national civil rights laws, a senior Bush administration lawyer said.

California is ground zero in a long tug of war with the federal government over the medical value of marijuana and the power of state governments and voters to make exceptions for people who may benefit from the illegal drug.

Five major federal lawsuits involve those who grow, use or recommend marijuana for medical use in California.

The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to settle the latest fight by agreeing that Washington has the power to revoke medical licenses of doctors who invoke state laws and recommend pot for their patients.

States cannot choose when to abide by federal law and when not to, Justice Department lawyer Mark Quinlivan said Saturday.

"You cannot cherry-pick," said Quinlivan, the top federal trial lawyer in three of the pending cases and a panelist at an American Bar Association discussion of medical marijuana.

California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Eight other states followed suit.

Federal law recognizes no medical purpose for the drug and bans its private production, sale or use.

"There is a basic question of what power does California have," said lawyer Gerald Uelman, Quinlivan's opponent in two cases. The federal law regulating drugs "is not a federal takeover of the medical system" or the duty of doctors to help the very ill, Uelman said.

Uelman and a California attorney general's office lawyer objected to the civil rights analogy and the notion that California is asserting the same kind of states' rights argument that Alabama used to try to avoid desegregating its schools.

When government agents shut down marijuana growers who serve sick people, it is "not acting with the same degree of moral propriety as it did to end civil rights abuses," said Taylor Carey, a California special assistant attorney general who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief backing medical marijuana.

California's fight with Washington has extended through the Democratic Clinton administration and the Republican Bush administration. The Supreme Court ruled against an Oakland marijuana distribution club two years ago, finding the federal drug law allows no exception for people to use pot to ease pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

The high court has not yet said whether it will hear the latest California case. The Bush administration wants the court to strike down a lower court ruling blocking punishment or investigation of physicians who tell patients they may be helped by the drug.

The administration's appeal, filed last month, argued that the ruling of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeps the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from protecting the public.

The ruling licenses doctors to treat patients with illegal drugs, and physicians who urge patients to use pot are no different from a doctor who might recommend heroin or LSD, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued.

At issue is a Clinton-era policy that requires revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana.

The appeals court said the policy interferes with free-speech rights of doctors and patients. Physicians should be able to speak candidly with patients without fear of government sanctions, the court said, but they can be punished if they help patients obtain the drug.

BigFrog · 08-11-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThunderBalls
The administration's appeal, filed last month, argued that the ruling of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeps the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from protecting the public.

The ruling licenses doctors to treat patients with illegal drugs, and physicians who urge patients to use pot are no different from a doctor who might recommend heroin or LSD, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued.

protect me from the wacky weed oh ye wise and powerful morons.

Joe Average · 08-11-2003, 11:58 PM

Marijuana bad.

Guns good.

Now there's unbeatable logic for ya!

Gemini · 08-11-2003, 11:58 PM

Old news. But we need some sort of law that either allows states to hsve their own bearing in certain things or that X amount of states change Federal Laws.

foe · 08-12-2003, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemini
Old news. But we need some sort of law that either allows states to hsve their own bearing in certain things or that X amount of states change Federal Laws.

thats what congress / senate is for

slackologist · 08-12-2003, 12:01 AM

male it legal, keep people that grow plants out of jail.. stop people from having to steal to buy dope. stop the man made paranoia surrounding a natural thing.

foe · 08-12-2003, 12:03 AM

I agree, I think that alcohol is a much harder drug that weed.

how many people died from weed 0 from alcohol thousands

is week addictive no alcohol yes

how many girls pass out from weed and get raped 0 how many girls on alcohol many ....

Fletch XXX · 08-12-2003, 12:03 AM

here they come.

foe · 08-12-2003, 12:03 AM

owe yeh, anyone ever hear of a pothead comming home and beating his wife?

eatapeach · 08-12-2003, 12:07 AM

fuck george bush and his administration

Gutterboy · 08-12-2003, 12:09 AM

So, Republicans, which plank of the party platform is this based on: States Rights or Smaller Federal Government?

420 · 08-12-2003, 12:11 AM

Toker · 08-12-2003, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThunderBalls
Proving once again a vote in this country is meaningless.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...CTION=POLITICS

<h4>Bush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Laws</h4>

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California and other states that want to make marijuana available to sick or dying patients are flouting federal drug laws in much the same way that Southern states defied national civil rights laws, a senior Bush administration lawyer said.

California is ground zero in a long tug of war with the federal government over the medical value of marijuana and the power of state governments and voters to make exceptions for people who may benefit from the illegal drug.

Five major federal lawsuits involve those who grow, use or recommend marijuana for medical use in California.

The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to settle the latest fight by agreeing that Washington has the power to revoke medical licenses of doctors who invoke state laws and recommend pot for their patients.

States cannot choose when to abide by federal law and when not to, Justice Department lawyer Mark Quinlivan said Saturday.

"You cannot cherry-pick," said Quinlivan, the top federal trial lawyer in three of the pending cases and a panelist at an American Bar Association discussion of medical marijuana.

California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Eight other states followed suit.

Federal law recognizes no medical purpose for the drug and bans its private production, sale or use.

"There is a basic question of what power does California have," said lawyer Gerald Uelman, Quinlivan's opponent in two cases. The federal law regulating drugs "is not a federal takeover of the medical system" or the duty of doctors to help the very ill, Uelman said.

Uelman and a California attorney general's office lawyer objected to the civil rights analogy and the notion that California is asserting the same kind of states' rights argument that Alabama used to try to avoid desegregating its schools.

When government agents shut down marijuana growers who serve sick people, it is "not acting with the same degree of moral propriety as it did to end civil rights abuses," said Taylor Carey, a California special assistant attorney general who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief backing medical marijuana.

California's fight with Washington has extended through the Democratic Clinton administration and the Republican Bush administration. The Supreme Court ruled against an Oakland marijuana distribution club two years ago, finding the federal drug law allows no exception for people to use pot to ease pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses.

The high court has not yet said whether it will hear the latest California case. The Bush administration wants the court to strike down a lower court ruling blocking punishment or investigation of physicians who tell patients they may be helped by the drug.

The administration's appeal, filed last month, argued that the ruling of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeps the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from protecting the public.

The ruling licenses doctors to treat patients with illegal drugs, and physicians who urge patients to use pot are no different from a doctor who might recommend heroin or LSD, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued.

At issue is a Clinton-era policy that requires revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana.

The appeals court said the policy interferes with free-speech rights of doctors and patients. Physicians should be able to speak candidly with patients without fear of government sanctions, the court said, but they can be punished if they help patients obtain the drug.

He fills his nose with da powder, day don't be likin da grass!

sacX · 08-12-2003, 12:20 AM

it's the old black and white logic at work again. There's no middle ground. Marijuana is evil :/ Whilst the CEO's of breweries etc are championed as captains of industry..

theking · 08-12-2003, 12:33 AM

"The Supreme Court ruled against an Oakland marijuana distribution club two years ago, finding the federal drug law allows no exception for people to use pot to ease pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses."

"The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to settle the latest fight by agreeing that Washington has the power to revoke medical licenses of doctors who invoke state laws and recommend pot for their patients."

Does the Federal Government play a role in the issuance of a license to practice medicine? Anyone know the answer.

It would seem to me that if the Federal Government plays no role in the issuance of a license to pratice medicine then they should not be in a position to play a role in the revocation of that license.

If they do play a role then the Supreme Court may very well rule in favor of the Federal Government...particularly since they ruled in favor of the Federal Government in the previous case.

gothweb · 08-12-2003, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemini
Old news. But we need some sort of law that either allows states to hsve their own bearing in certain things or that X amount of states change Federal Laws.

We have a law. It's called the Constitution, and it sets out what sorts of laws the States have the power to create, and what has to come from the Federal government.

theking · 08-12-2003, 12:41 AM

Of course the Feds could prosecute a doctor recommending the use of MJ...for conspiracy to committ a crime...if nothing else. A few prosecutions with the max penalty should pretty much take care of the doctors recommending the use of MJ.

Gemini · 08-12-2003, 01:44 AM

Thats just it... the Feds do NOT license doctors, the States do. How can the Feds crack down other than to deny Fed monies? Simple, they bring a Bush in and just do it. No doubt it will be brought under their Patriot Act at some point. I'm not 'for' pot unless it actually helps someone beat the pain and still have some lucidity in their last days. I can only hope my Mother knew we were there while they had her hyped on morophine as she passed.

The part that seems odd is, that they can extract the THC and make it into some other form. Why aren't states doing so to thumb their noses at the Feds? Drugs are pretty much state to state (even WITH the FDA) in so much as whether they are allowed or not.

ThunderBalls · 08-12-2003, 04:48 AM

I think the more important issue here is the fact that the people of these states voted to have marijuana legal for medicinal purposes and the federal government could give a shit about what the people want.

Poll after poll shows something like over 70% think pot should be legal and yet the feds continue with this bullshit. A perfect example of how special interests groups run this country. Marijuana will be legal someday but I don't see it happening for at least another 15 or 20 years.

08-11-2003, 11:46 PM	#1
ThunderBalls So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mesosphere Posts: 2,926	Bush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Laws Proving once again a vote in this country is meaningless. http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...CTION=POLITICS <h4>Bush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Laws</h4> SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- California and other states that want to make marijuana available to sick or dying patients are flouting federal drug laws in much the same way that Southern states defied national civil rights laws, a senior Bush administration lawyer said. California is ground zero in a long tug of war with the federal government over the medical value of marijuana and the power of state governments and voters to make exceptions for people who may benefit from the illegal drug. Five major federal lawsuits involve those who grow, use or recommend marijuana for medical use in California. The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to settle the latest fight by agreeing that Washington has the power to revoke medical licenses of doctors who invoke state laws and recommend pot for their patients. States cannot choose when to abide by federal law and when not to, Justice Department lawyer Mark Quinlivan said Saturday. "You cannot cherry-pick," said Quinlivan, the top federal trial lawyer in three of the pending cases and a panelist at an American Bar Association discussion of medical marijuana. California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Eight other states followed suit. Federal law recognizes no medical purpose for the drug and bans its private production, sale or use. "There is a basic question of what power does California have," said lawyer Gerald Uelman, Quinlivan's opponent in two cases. The federal law regulating drugs "is not a federal takeover of the medical system" or the duty of doctors to help the very ill, Uelman said. Uelman and a California attorney general's office lawyer objected to the civil rights analogy and the notion that California is asserting the same kind of states' rights argument that Alabama used to try to avoid desegregating its schools. When government agents shut down marijuana growers who serve sick people, it is "not acting with the same degree of moral propriety as it did to end civil rights abuses," said Taylor Carey, a California special assistant attorney general who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief backing medical marijuana. California's fight with Washington has extended through the Democratic Clinton administration and the Republican Bush administration. The Supreme Court ruled against an Oakland marijuana distribution club two years ago, finding the federal drug law allows no exception for people to use pot to ease pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses. The high court has not yet said whether it will hear the latest California case. The Bush administration wants the court to strike down a lower court ruling blocking punishment or investigation of physicians who tell patients they may be helped by the drug. The administration's appeal, filed last month, argued that the ruling of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeps the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from protecting the public. The ruling licenses doctors to treat patients with illegal drugs, and physicians who urge patients to use pot are no different from a doctor who might recommend heroin or LSD, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued. At issue is a Clinton-era policy that requires revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana. The appeals court said the policy interferes with free-speech rights of doctors and patients. Physicians should be able to speak candidly with patients without fear of government sanctions, the court said, but they can be punished if they help patients obtain the drug.

08-11-2003, 11:58 PM	#3
Joe Average Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 785	Marijuana bad. Guns good. Now there's unbeatable logic for ya! __________________ I used to get high on life but then I built up a tolerance.

08-11-2003, 11:58 PM	#4
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Old news. But we need some sort of law that either allows states to hsve their own bearing in certain things or that X amount of states change Federal Laws. __________________ <center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>

08-12-2003, 12:03 AM	#8
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	here they come. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

08-12-2003, 12:20 AM	#14
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	it's the old black and white logic at work again. There's no middle ground. Marijuana is evil :/ Whilst the CEO's of breweries etc are championed as captains of industry.. __________________ Have Asian Language Traffic?

08-12-2003, 12:01 AM	#6
slackologist Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 2,379	male it legal, keep people that grow plants out of jail.. stop people from having to steal to buy dope. stop the man made paranoia surrounding a natural thing.

08-12-2003, 12:03 AM	#7
foe Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: CT Posts: 5,246	I agree, I think that alcohol is a much harder drug that weed. how many people died from weed 0 from alcohol thousands is week addictive no alcohol yes how many girls pass out from weed and get raped 0 how many girls on alcohol many ....

08-12-2003, 12:07 AM	#10
eatapeach Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: toto's doghouse Posts: 493	fuck george bush and his administration

08-12-2003, 12:09 AM	#11
Gutterboy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dis Posts: 4,751	So, Republicans, which plank of the party platform is this based on: States Rights or Smaller Federal Government?

08-12-2003, 12:11 AM	#12
420 cuck Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 11,571

08-12-2003, 12:33 AM	#15
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	"The Supreme Court ruled against an Oakland marijuana distribution club two years ago, finding the federal drug law allows no exception for people to use pot to ease pain from cancer, AIDS or other illnesses." "The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to settle the latest fight by agreeing that Washington has the power to revoke medical licenses of doctors who invoke state laws and recommend pot for their patients." Does the Federal Government play a role in the issuance of a license to practice medicine? Anyone know the answer. It would seem to me that if the Federal Government plays no role in the issuance of a license to pratice medicine then they should not be in a position to play a role in the revocation of that license. If they do play a role then the Supreme Court may very well rule in favor of the Federal Government...particularly since they ruled in favor of the Federal Government in the previous case. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

08-12-2003, 12:41 AM	#17
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	Of course the Feds could prosecute a doctor recommending the use of MJ...for conspiracy to committ a crime...if nothing else. A few prosecutions with the max penalty should pretty much take care of the doctors recommending the use of MJ. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html Last edited by theking; 08-12-2003 at 12:43 AM..

08-12-2003, 01:44 AM	#18
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Thats just it... the Feds do NOT license doctors, the States do. How can the Feds crack down other than to deny Fed monies? Simple, they bring a Bush in and just do it. No doubt it will be brought under their Patriot Act at some point. I'm not 'for' pot unless it actually helps someone beat the pain and still have some lucidity in their last days. I can only hope my Mother knew we were there while they had her hyped on morophine as she passed. The part that seems odd is, that they can extract the THC and make it into some other form. Why aren't states doing so to thumb their noses at the Feds? Drugs are pretty much state to state (even WITH the FDA) in so much as whether they are allowed or not. __________________ <center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&aid=535&cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>

08-12-2003, 04:48 AM	#19
ThunderBalls So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mesosphere Posts: 2,926	I think the more important issue here is the fact that the people of these states voted to have marijuana legal for medicinal purposes and the federal government could give a shit about what the people want. Poll after poll shows something like over 70% think pot should be legal and yet the feds continue with this bullshit. A perfect example of how special interests groups run this country. Marijuana will be legal someday but I don't see it happening for at least another 15 or 20 years.