South Bay medical marijuana users await U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Justices will hear arguments in the case today.Before one 43-year-old Lomita resident summons the resolve to perform basic daily tasks like brushing her teeth, she must tackle the debilitating pain that is her constant companion. So, Shelly, who requested her last name be withheld, takes a muscle relaxant, gingerly stretches for 30 minutes -- and then takes what she calls her medication with names like Super Silver Haze or Morningstar. Shelly uses marijuana on a doctor's recommendation. Her medical use of marijuana helps combat lupus, an auto-immune deficiency, and the excruciating pain caused by a muscle and tendon condition known as fibromyalgia that leaves her hobbling and sometimes needing a cane to walk. The afflictions have left the former telephone customer service employee unable to work and on long-term disability. Marijuana, she says, helps alleviate nausea that can cause her to vomit for hours, muscle spasms that wrack her body and severe migraines that can leave her curled up sobbing in a fetal position in a darkened bedroom. "Every single thing I do is a pain decision," said Shelly sitting stiffly in apparent discomfort in her living room that is a stone's throw from the Lomita sheriff's station. "But I use pain medication as a last resort. I don't want that groggy feeling you get from pain medication. I want to be able to function. "People who say you can't have (marijuana) haven't limped in my shoes. I couldn't survive without it." Under state law, a majority of voters have said Shelly can use medical marijuana, based on the 1996 passage of Proposition 215. But the federal government says she can't, refuses to recognize state law and insists that marijuana has no accepted medical use. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that may resolve the conflicting federal and state statutes. "We want more clarity on this issue," said Richard Meyer, spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Agency in San Francisco. "Never before has a substance become medicine by a popular vote without making that substance go through a rigorous process that the Food and Drug Administration puts all drugs through." [zombienote: Meyers is paid to lie about marijuana and does his job with ruthless dedication. The FDA is part of the accountibilty shell game that is played to keep all legal efforts at cannabis reclassification and relegalization at bay.] It's the second time in three years the court has addressed the issue. In 2001, the court ruled against the distribution of medical marijuana, a decision that prompted raids on growing operations. Ashcroft v. Raich This time medical marijuana proponents are more optimistic about Ashcroft v. Raich, a suit brought by an Oakland medical marijuana patient. "This is the ideal case to have before the Supreme Court," said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the nonprofit Marijuana Policy Project, one of the organizations helping pay for the litigation. "The named plaintiff in the case is a highly sympathetic patient whose medical need for marijuana cannot reasonably be questioned. And there is no evidence at all -- in fact it's pretty much been stipulated by all parties involved -- there was no interstate commerce involved." That last point is key. It is the so-called Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which covers interstate trade, that the federal government interprets as giving it broad powers to regulate the sale and distribution of medical marijuana. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved a gradual expansion of the Commerce Clause, awarding the federal government ever increasing regulatory authority. [zombienote: Read: creeping out of the boundaries established for the Federal Government by the 10th Amendment.] But the last two major decisions affecting the Commerce Clause before the conservative-leaning court dating back to 1995 have resulted in the majority ruling against expanding the Commerce Clause -- and in favor of states' rights -- for the first time since 1936. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a similar stance last December, when it ruled that medical marijuana activities do not cross state lines, setting up the latest legal battle. "People who have studied the law understand there always seems to be a drug policy exception to the Constitution -- when a drug case comes to the Supreme Court suddenly the federal government power seems to be unlimited," Fox said. "So, it would be foolhardy to predict the Supreme Court is going to overrule the 9th Circuit. But, if they are going to be ideologically consistent, it would be possible or perhaps likely to uphold state rights in this circumstance." A growing consensus Medical marijuana is not a partisan issue and polls suggest support for medical marijuana is widespread and -- no pun intended -- growing. [zombienote: Misleding sentence. It is not a partisan issue to voters, but it is highly partisan at the Federal level. Dems do very little to counter the GOP's cross-eyed fixation on demonizing cannabis. Rmember, they say it's linked to "terra".] Proposition 215 passed when 56 percent of California voters cast ballots in favor of it. Today, an independent poll released earlier this year showed that figure has risen to 74 percent of registered voters. South Bay Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, a close Bush administration ally, opposes the federal government stance on the issue. [zombienote: Rohrbacher is one of maybe 3 Repubs with the balls to do the right thing.] For the past two years he has co-sponsored an amendment prohibiting the federal government from interfering in state medical marijuana laws. It has failed both times, although Rohrabacher believes if voting were conducted by secret ballot politicians who fear being branded as soft on drugs during a re-election campaign would likely have voted for it. [zombienote: Who is doing this branding of soft on "druuuuugs"? It's not the Dems....] Rohrabacher, whose youthful dalliances with the drug are well documented, said in part his view was shaped by watching his mother die after an operation led to medical complications he believed may have been alleviated by marijuana. "A lot of people always suggest that conservatives talk about little government on economic issues, but don't stand up for people on some of these other issues," he said. "I think there is some justification to that criticism. [zombienote: Most repubs who DO speak out in favor of the truth have had dealings with cancer: either their own, their family, or important constituents.] "I don't believe the federal government should be at the level of government that controls every aspect of our society. I am someone who believes in federalism, just like our founding fathers did and especially criminal justice issues should be local or state (controlled)." As far as the District Attorney's Office is concerned that's the case with medical marijuana users. "We follow state law," said spokeswoman Jane Robison. "If they've got a valid doctor's prescription and (the marijuana) is for medical purposes, we don't prosecute." Meyer, the DEA spokesman, concedes some local jurisdictions do not cooperate with the federal government. But, while he concedes that THC -- the active ingredient in marijuana -- "may have some therapeutic value," he believes the marijuana lobby is using the seriously ill "to twist their own agenda" of legalizing all illegal drugs. Some dubious claims "I've heard reports that say marijuana is a life-saving drug and if (medical marijuana patients) don't smoke marijuana they may very well die for the lack of marijuana," Meyer said. "I know that is false. I know the American Medical Association does not endorse marijuana. In fact, the AMA says marijuana should remain illegal, that marijuana is not a harmless drug and that more research is needed." [zombienote: Liar. Steve Kubby will die without it, and Peter McWillians dies without out it. Plain and simple. But hey, Meyers is doing his job.] But the AMA also believes doctors and patients should not be subject to "criminal sanctions" because "effective patient care requires the free and unfettered exchange of information on treatment alternatives." Peter Warren, the San Pedro-based spokesman of the California Medical Association, which represents the state's 35,000 physicians, goes further. The CMA believes that while more studies of marijuana are needed, it certainly isn't as dangerous a drug as painkillers like Demerol that can kill in high enough dosages, he said. Warren charges that the Bush administration is engaged in the politicizing of medicine and seeks to disrupt the confidentiality of the patient-doctor relationship. Hesitant to recommend Many physicians, fearful of legal consequences or the possible loss of their medical license, are hesitant to recommend marijuana to their patients, even as a drug of last resort, where all other alternatives have failed, he said. "The federal government is engaged in scaring physicians and intimidating them for trying to provide the best care possible for very sick people," Warren said. "We find it inappropriate for the Justice Department to try and get between doctors and patients or try to scare patients or physicians into talking about this. This isn't a medically based decision, this is a political or criminal law-based decision." An oncologist who works for one of the two largest cancer clinics in Torrance, but asked not to be identified, said that he has seen it benefit patients, decreasing pain, stimulating appetite, enhancing moods and reducing nausea. [zombienote: This is so well-established NO more studies need to be done. It's moot, except for GOP propagandizing of the issue. "More studies" is part of the footdragging game.] But the cancer specialist said he doesn't recommend it to patients in part because of the conflict between federal and state laws. "We're not sure if it keeps them from being prosecuted by a federal court," he said. "It's my obligation to prevent any harassment of the patient." But some physicians, like Dr. William Vicary, the Los Angeles-based psychiatrist who treats Lomita resident Shelly, recommends it to chronically ill patients as a "last resort." Marijuana can help some seriously ill patients and the federal government knows it, he said, pointing to the legal drug Marinol, a THC synthetic. But many patients, such as Shelly, find that not only is Marinol expensive, it is not as effective as marijuana. [zombienote: Marinol is very expensive and ineffective. Worthless, to be exact.] "If the argument is marijuana doesn't do any good, what is the federal government doing approving this medication?" Vicary asked. "The quality of her life would be substantially diminished were she not to have access to medical marijuana." Indeed, Shelly said she doesn't live day by day. She cuts her life into 15-minute segments; it's a tactic used by someone whose existence is so overwhelming it can take three days to vacuum her condominium." "I have the fear that if someone finds out who I am, they'll throw me in jail," she said. "I'm hoping that more people realize marijuana is not a dangerous drug -- it's just a medication. I'm hoping we get more people with that point of view on the Supreme Court -- and on every court."|W|P|110173309318390929|W|P|Cure or Crime?|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
Bush Isn't Going Away and Neither Are We!We cannot wait another 4 years to stand against the war and rampant social injustice of another Bush Administration. A coalition of social, political, and religious activists have come together to protest the coronation of George W. Bush. We invite you and all your friends and family to join hundreds of thousands in the streets of Washington, DC. On November 2nd and 3rd as the votes were being counted residents of Washington DC took to the streets to show opposition to an inherently corrupt system, no matter who won the presidential election. Now the inauguration looms on the horizon and in DC where 91% voters rejected Bush energy is high to organize visible resistance to another 4 years of Bush through linking the national and even global struggle against the Bush regime to our local struggle for democracy here in the District. Come out and help shape this resistance! Join us for a week of action January 15-Janurary 20, 2005. We're here to help plug you in to all the action. A coordinated national network is organizing a non-violent citizen siege to greet the President at his January 20 inauguration. The spokescouncil organizing a framework for resistance currently includes participation by nearly 20 local groups, in addition to groups from NYC, SF, Chicago, Charlotte, Philly, Baltimore, and God knows where else. Three recent articles suggest the need for this sort of mobilization, in reaction to the illegitimacy of the national election:Posted @ zombienotes in solidarity with these actions. |W|P|110164986292306298|W|P|Siege!|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.comIf Serbian students could force a change in their government, so can a diverse alliance of American students, peace activists, environmentalists, laborers, women's rights advocates, academics, artists, and professionals. There's no reason to constrain our imagination… IF YOU CARE, GET OUT OF YOUR CHAIR IF YOU GIVE A DAMN, TAKE A STAND If you're tired of control by corrupt, illegitimate, warmongering conservative factions TAKE ACTION Looking forward to seeing you in DC on Jan 20,
- Thom Hartmann's investigative article re electronic vote rigging in Florida includes some both indicative — and chilling — facts.
- Greg Palast's investigative article includes observations of electoral irregularities in both Ohio and New Mexico which undermined their reflection of a popular preference for Kerry.
- Cass Sunstein's recent article calls for outspoken opposition to the right-wing agenda, even if last week's electoral results were in fact legitimate.
- Page 3 of 4 about the PBS movie "Bringing Down a Dictator" offers a concrete example of a recent success by nonviolent direct action in transforming the government of a country.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on whether the feds have the right to arrest medical marijuana patients. But will the justices have all the facts?[zombienote: Nope. They won't. And even if they did, cannabis facts get trumped by the culture war ideology: several of the supremes are rightwing appointees and the real truth will be suffocated.] The end of November marks the beginning of what could be the final act for the medical marijuana movement. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take from Nov. 29 until late spring to decide, in the case of Ashcroft vs. Raich, whether federal agents can arrest medical cannabis patients, even in states that authorize medical cannabis use. It is an epic states' rights battle, although few in the national media portray it that way. Major media outlets also continue to ignore a growing body of evidence that suggests that cannabinoids, the active ingredients in cannabis, show more healing potential for a variety of illnesses than practically any natural substance known to medical science. Why is the federal government bent on suppressing cannabis when solid research suggests it can be so beneficial? Ask the members of the U.S. House and Senate, who blindly demonize marijuana while accepting millions of dollars in donations from the same pharmaceutical giants who back cannabis prohibition. If the Supreme Court also turns a blind eye to the research and rules, as it did in 2001, that cannabis has no medical use unless Congress says it has a medical use, then it hardly matters if cannabinoids turn out to be the cure for cancer, as some European cannabis researchers are suggesting. In May 2000 I reported that Spanish researchers had shrunk or destroyed deadly brain tumors in rats using THC, a cannabinoid. The Spaniards' study was reportedly the first time that cannabinoids had been administered to tumor-bearing animals. With information provided by Manuel Guzman, the lead researcher in the Madrid study, I uncovered a 1974 study done in the United States in which THC had shrunk breast and lung tumors in rats. The federal government had suppressed the study's results and subsequently shut down all cannabis research at public institutions. One year later, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first ruling on medical cannabis, a negative decision against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club. The intervening years have seen substantial research on cannabinoids by Guzman and a handful of dedicated European scientists. In 2003 the First European Workshop on Cannabinoid Research produced more than 50 pages of investigative abstracts from the U.K., Italy, Spain, Germany and France that provide the scientific basis for researchers' claims that cannabinoids hold promise for Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, alcoholism, depression and other illnesses. In October 2003 Guzman published a review of cannabis research in Nature Cancer that described in detail the anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids. Last August, Guzman reported in Cancer Research how cannabinoids deprive cancerous tumors of the blood they need to survive. The article mentioned the first known trials of cannabis tincture on humans with brain cancer, which reportedly showed positive results. The research findings of European cannabis researchers receive substantial coverage in Spain, Latin America, the U.K., France and Germany. The U.S. media have been largely silent, until recently. The American Association for Cannabis Research, a 15,000-member group of U.S. cancer researchers, issued a press release in August about Guzman's latest findings, prompting coverage in Scientific American and a smattering of other mainstream outlets. It is impossible to know whether Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the negative decision in the 2001 Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club case, will be aware that cannabinoids shrink tumors when he makes his decision in Ashcroft vs. Raich. The Supreme Court justices and their legal staff would appear to have a moral, if not a legal responsibility to acquire at least a rudimentary knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the great national issues they decide. In the case of medical marijuana, there is so much evidence about the healing potential of cannabinoids, even on the government's own web sites, that it suggests negligence to ignore it. If the Supreme Court rules against patients in Ashcroft vs. Raich, it will give the U.S. Justice Department all the justification it needs to resume its persecution of medical pot users and effectively destroy the medical marijuana movement in California and nine other states. Then cannabis clubs will become part of our collective memory, and valuable research on cannabinoids will continue to be ignored. Raymond Cushing is a writer based in Sacramento, Calif. His article on cannabis research was included in the 2000 Project Censored collection. See also: Ashcroft v. Raich: Medical Marijuana and the Supremes by Fred Gardner
Among the feds' arguments is one usually left unspoken: prohibition serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations. As expressed in the Solicitor General's brief, "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the CSA would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances." It would also undercut "the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs." That's as close as the government has come to acknowledging that wider cannabis use would jeopardize drug-company profits.[zombienote: In addition to the suppression of the medical use of cannabis, your fine, fine lawmakers beleive in hunting pot smokers down and sparing no expense - the more the government spends on the drug war, the more violent crime increases. It's the greatest scam ever for law enforcement.]|W|P|110159153565487381|W|P|The Fate of Medical Pot|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
Pre-Prohibition Medicinal Cannabis evidenceNew Drug for Multiple Sclerosis Scott Roberts | FORBES FRIDAY, Nov. 26 (HealthDayNews) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Tysabri (natalizumab) as a new treatment for multiple sclerosis. The incurable nervous system disease affects about 350,000 Americans. The drug, known as a humanized monoclonal antibody, appears to work by preventing immune cells from migrating from the bloodstream to the brain, where they cause inflammation and lead to nerve fiber damage, its two manufacturers said in a statement. The medication is produced by Massachusetts-based Biogen Idec Inc. and the Irish drugmaker Elan Corp. [SNIP] What Price Tysabri? (excerpt) On a joint conference call Wednesday morning, executives with Biogen Idec and Elan would not disclose Tysabri's selling price, saying pricing information would be disclosed over the next few days as the drug is launched. Guesstimates have ranged from $20,000/year to as much as $30,000/year. By comparison, Avonex, Betaseron and Copaxone cost about $13,000 per year, Rebif $16,500 per year.Hmmm.... Let's say 300,000 people elect to spend $10,000 per year on this new drug: that's $300 million per year potential income, on top of whatever else the company produces. Contrast these reports with this rather excellent presentation from a woman with MS: MS, Marijuana and Me
Alison Myrden has Multiple Sclerosis. Her condition causes her constant pain, bladder problems and leg spasms. The drugs prescribed for her condition render her comatose. Instead, Alison chooses medical marijuana. Come spend a day with her and find out why.It is pretty clear profits are a main issue medical marijuana is so opposed by the US Federal Government. Big Phama pumps millions of dollars to Republicans (and, yes, some crumbs to a few Dems, but nothing remotely comparable) who have a sort of "two-fisted" strangelhold on keeping pot illegal and demonized: protect big corporate profits and toe the ideological line in what we call the culture war. Click here and scroll down to the middle of page 4 (CONTRAINDICATIONS) and read about known side-effects reported for Tysabri. Note this: "Safety and efficacy in patients with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis have not been established." And we are not supposed to smoke pot because why? How many people will suffer and possibly die needlessly for the profits of a tiny handful of already wealthy people? I have been following the Vioxx/RU 486/FDA scandal and it is entirely prudent to ask that question. How many people will suffer and possibly die needlessly for the profits of a tiny handful of already wealthy people? I have been following the Vioxx/RU 486/FDA scandal and it is entirely prudent to ask that question. Ms. Ariana Huffington joins the fray:
Merck’s actions throughout the entire Vioxx affair have been utterly despicable. When the company pulled the drug off the market in September, CEO Raymond Gilmartin claimed that the scientific findings that led to the withdrawal were “unexpected.” This is like releasing a ravenous wolf into a pen full of sheep, then acting surprised that lamb chops are on the menu. Recently uncovered internal Merck documents show that, as far back as 1998 — a year before the drug was even approved by the FDA — the drug giant had evidence indicating that Vioxx was a potential killer. But instead of going back to the drawing board, the company made the heart-stopping decision to push ahead — using every weapon in its well-funded arsenal to put off regulators, rope in consumers and keep the bad news from surfacing. They did a masterful job, turning Vioxx into a commercial elixir: Last year alone, sales of the drug totaled $2.5 billion. It was a huge success. Unless you were one of the people who had to be sacrificed for it. ***** [T]he most loathsome aspect of the whole Vioxx affair is the way Merck used a $500 million marketing campaign to persuade over 20 million Americans to pop its noxious little pill. And company executives continued to run these ads long after they knew there was big trouble brewing. I’m sure our evangelical friends in the red states will agree that there ought to be a special place in hell for corporations that show such a wanton disregard for human life.The song remains the same: medical cannabis bad, dangerous but lucrative pharmaceuticals good. Medical marijuana is a threat to pharmaceutical profiteering. See also: Americans for Safe Access MS Patients Union Therapeutic uses of cannabis British Medical Association Board of Science and Education 1997 |W|P|110152688553823684|W|P|Medical Marijuana -vs- Big Pharma's Profiteering|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
Ms. Angela Raich
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that will determine whether Raich and similar patients in California and 10 other states can continue to use marijuana for medical purposes.
At issue is whether states have the right to adopt laws allowing the use of drugs the federal government has banned or whether federal drug agents can arrest individuals for abiding by those medical marijuana laws.
California passed the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. The Bush administration maintains those laws violate federal drug rules and asserts that marijuana has no medical value.
[zombienote: See Guy Pharmceuticals: This is an English Company that makes cannabis-based medicines..because..um... marijuana has clear medical value.]
But the drug eases Raich's pain, allows her to rise out of a wheelchair and promotes an appetite that prevents her from wasting away.
It "is the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that works," said her Berkeley physician, Frank Lucido.
"I really hope and pray the justices allow me to live," said Raich as she crammed a blend of a marijuana variety known as "Haze X" into a contraption that vaporized it inside large balloons.
She said the outcome of the case will determine whether her "husband will have a wife," her "children a mother."
The case will address questions left unresolved from the first time the high court considered the legality of medical marijuana.
In 2001, the justices ruled against clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the patient. The ruling forced Raich's Oakland supplier to close and other cannabis clubs to operate in the shadows.
The decision did not address whether the government can block states from adopting their own medical marijuana laws.
Nevertheless, the federal government took the offensive after the ruling, often over the objections of local officials. It began seizing individuals' medical marijuana and raiding their suppliers. Nowhere was that effort more conspicuous than in the San Francisco Bay area, where the nation's medical marijuana movement was founded.
[zombienote: It's a Culture War and the raids are designed and intended to chill free speech and further reform efforts, as well as cause fear , panic, and disillusionment.]
Raich and Diane Monson, the other plaintiff in the case, sued Attorney General John Ashcroft because they feared their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up. After a two-year legal battle, they won injunctions barring the U.S. Justice Department from prosecuting them or their suppliers.
"This has been a nightmare," said Monson, a 47-year-old accountant from Oroville whose backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized in 2002. "I've never sued anyone in my life, never mind the attorney general of the United States of America. For crying out loud, here in California we've voted to allow medical marijuana."
[zombienote: For crying out loud: this mean-spirited attack on medical marijuana is also a mean-spiritd attack on the "will of the people. Ashcroft also attacked Oregon's Death with Dignity law, a popular reform voted into law by Oregonians. Ashcroft, the DEA, the US Federal government, the GOP, and the entire Bush Administration hate our freedoms. And our policies.]
She regularly uses marijuana on a doctor's recommendation to alleviate back problems. She says it also helps cope with the recent death of her husband, who suffered from pancreatic cancer.
Last December, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Raich's and Monson's favor. It said federal laws criminalizing marijuana do not apply to patients whose doctors have recommended the drug.
[zombienote: The GOP hates the 9th Circuit Court, too. They intend to break it up to eliminate what they call "judicial activism".]
The appeals court said states were free to adopt medical marijuana laws as long as the marijuana was not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes. The other states with such laws are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
The court ruled that marijuana for medicinal purposes is "different in kind from drug trafficking" and outside the scope of federal oversight.
The same court last year said doctors were free to recommend marijuana to their patients. The government appealed, but the Supreme Court justices declined to hear the case.
In June, however, the justices agreed to hear the Raich-Monson case. A ruling is expected to decide the states' rights issue the court left unanswered in 2001.
Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement told the justices in briefs that the government, backed by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, has the power to regulate the "manufacture, distribution and possession of any controlled substance," even if such activity takes place entirely within one state.
[zombienote: And that ruling is in clear violation of the 10th amendment. The war against marijuana has always been a war on the Consitution.]
Besides California, the states allowing marijuana to be used as medicine with a doctor's recommendation are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state.
Even some states without medical marijuana laws have criticized the federal government's position. Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi told the court they "support their neighbors' prerogative in our federalist system to serve as laboratories for experimentation."
A number of medical groups, doctors and marijuana supporters also wrote the court, saying marijuana benefits sick patients.
Medical Marijuana is real.
Raich, whose legal team includes her husband, Robert, said she hopes the chemotherapy Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is undergoing for thyroid cancer "would soften his heart about the issue."
[zombienote: Rather unlikely. This is a huge culture war issue and the ideology will trump reality until protests are huge. And, of course, Big Pharma gives them so much money to keep it illegal. Rehnquist and the others know both who butters their bread and that they could wake up to the horse heads themselves.
That said, most "republicans" that support medical marijuana have either fought cancer or lost family members or important constitutents to it. The ideology competes with fear of death for primacy.]
"I think," she said, "he would find that cannabis would help him a lot."
The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.
See also: Supreme Court to weigh medical marijuana laws
|W|P|110150047750546066|W|P|High Court to Weigh Medical Marijuana Laws|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.comRepublican lawmakers plan to reintroduce a bill to suspend the sale of RU-486, the abortion pill, and probe the process surrounding its approval now that three U.S. deaths have been linked to the drug.Culture War. The FDA allowed Vioxx to stay on the maket four years after it was established that Vioxx may have caused 55,000 deaths, as well as thousands of heart attacks and strokes. . It's all about profit, for sure, except where culture war issues and ideology come into play. The anti-choice demographic, here, clearly the GOP and Bush Administration, didn't want to allow RU-486 to begin with, yet allowed tens of thousands to have heart attacks and die so their buddies at Big Pharma could maintain the profiteering of it's sales. They even have the audacity to call the Clinton Administration decison to OK RU-486 "thoroughly political, not scientific." These guys just float in irony like fish in water. The FDA is part of the accountibilty shell game that is played to keep all legal efforts at cannabis reclassification and relegalization at bay. Cannabis has not killed anybody and has few harsf side-effects compared to MOST of the pharmaceuticals now pushed upon Americans and the world. Clearly they do not give a damn about your or my health or well-being. Cannabis is better. |W|P|110140253369259538|W|P|They must really care about women...|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
The Bush administration took America’s psychotic panic and sense of fear and they exacerbated the climate and turned the American people into a population of babbling accomplices to secrecy. The American people gave their hard won open democratic form of government over to the Bush fear-mongers and we received back the dreaded “threat level index” compliments of Tommy the Baron Ridge. America’s panic and fear level was manipulated on a daily basis with every issue of the newest “terrorist threat” and two days later it would be revealed that “well that intelligence was not reliable.” Americans have been on an emotional psychotic roller coaster ever since. ******* The fabric of American society is frayed and wearing thin. Bush’s preemptive war on Iraq was, is, and will be illegal. The rationale used by the Bush gang was deceit pure and simple. Bush deceived Congress, the American people, and the world community. It doesn’t matter how one might care to wrap this deceit, it is illegal by U.S. Constitutional law, United Nations charter law, and according to the Geneva Convention. You can’t wrap Bush’s deceit in an American flag and make his atrocity into something that is worthy of patriotic praise. You can’t drag Bush’s deceit into church and then expect God to anoint his atrocity as a “holy crusade” and I don’t care how big General Jesus Boykin’s god is. The collective conscience of the American people know and they know deep down, the U.S. has been taken down a road of illegal deceit and preemptive war that is now a very real genocide and war crime. The national nervous breakdown is about one more rush hour traffic jam away from tearing this country apart. Regular American family is sitting at home and nervously wondering if they will be able to keep their jobs and homes. The American service families sit at home and wonder if their children will be just another body bag or worse. An Iraq casualty that will spend the rest of a wasted life doing rehab for a war wound that should never have been inflicted in the first place. These are real and tangible fears. They eat at the American conscience and America is on the edge. America is on the verge of a national nervous collapse.|W|P|110125853163661266|W|P|America NEEDS a bonghit.|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
excerpt: The cultural and regional divisions wracking this nation are the latest flare-up of a persistent conflict in American politics. But it's more than just a rematch of the Civil War. It's even deeper than that. It goes all the way back to Britain, where the ancestors of today's Northerners and Southerners didn't get along, either. The colonists brought their squabbling cultures to North America, where the fight continues to this day.See also: The 10 Regions of US Politics |W|P|110121418435525642|W|P| The New Civil War|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
kron.com | Posted: November 17, 2004 at 12:38 p.m.
SALINAS, Calif. (AP) -- A Salinas man will have to choose between going to jail or joining the military as his punishment for possession of marijuana.
A judge surprised both the prosecution and defense yesterday when he told Brian Barr that he could avoid a jail term by enlisting in the military.
The 24-year-old Barr was charged with marijuana possession after shooting a would-be robber who had entered his apartment with two others.
Police say Barr sold marijuana from his home, and that the three men were searching for money and marijuana.
In giving Barr a choice of sentence, Monterey County Judge Robert Moody said that the shooting was justified.
Barr is scheduled to return to court next month.
(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press.)
|W|P|110103771961192079|W|P|Man With Pot Given Choice: Jail or Military|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
Cannabis relates to the culture war as part of the "Pro-Choice" agenda. People are either free to make important choices for the health and well-being of themselves and/or their families, or they are not.
So many of the issues boil down to tolerating versus suppressing or eliminating personal choice, which can be presented as the essence of freedom.
Abortion, gun ownership, medical marijuana, death with dignity, and gay marriage are all issues of choice - personal choice for one's life or dependent family members. At every juncture we have battles between government and people and people who want to use the government to enforce their morality on the rest of the nation.
This past election shows the scope of the Culture War as the election was made into a referendum not about the war crimes of the Bush Administration – or its disastrous economic stunts - but about who marries whom, rightwing fundamental religious evangelism. and the Bush-GOP cult of personality.
Despite the apparent outpouring of unbridled rightwing ignorance, cannabis reforms won: 10 of 12 important reforms with far larger margins than the presidential election, which was so close and so rife with “dirty tricks” ( more & more) that it is still technically in question, which can be a reason for the way the Bush Team is moving so rapidly to consolidate it’s extremist agenda.
And a large part of the Bush agenda is removing personal choice for all manner of issues. Ashcroft, on his way out the proverbial door, took another slap at death with dignity in Oregon, a slap at both personal choice and the will of the people who voted it into law.
Take pharmaceuticals, but don't smoke pot
Again, the Culture War is a war against personal choice where on one side are GOP/Republican/rightwing extremists that go to bed every night, unhappy and angry that somebody else - usually on "the other side" - is having a good time. These people make your private life, all the way down to your sexual desires and fantasies, thier business. If you are smoking pot, you are on their list.
There exists in America a schizophrenic level of hypocricy demonstrated with the "War on Drugs" presented as an effort to "save lives" and "send the proper message to the children" while phamaceutical drugs, known to have deleterious side effects and outrageously expensive, are presented as safe and good. Did I say presented? I meant advertised day and night everywhere.
Attempts to get cheaper medications, or medical marijuana which completely bypasses pharmaceutical profiteering, are a no-no, prompting the Federal Government to issue terror threats when Americans want to get meds from Canada. People are dying from Vioxx yet Homeland Security has the audacity to suggest meds form Canada could be "dangerous".
The war on marijuana is a huge effort to suppress this multi-purpose plant, costing the taxpayer about $20 billion + each year; money lost forever, funneled to the failed "war on Drugs" and to fund lame propaganda. A comprehensive media blackout of cannabis exists to precvent and meaningful public discourse of cannabis topics in general and the sheer scale of marijuana arrests in particular.
Example of Misleading "Stats" from a police website.
Why are the police so involved in the media effort to always be lying about marijuana? Where are the graphs for people dying from pharmaceuticals?
We are constantly told that cannabis is bad, dangerous, addictive "crude" - all sorts of untrue stuff - yet we are allowed to and are essentially forced to –coercied - to buy harmful and not always effective pharmaceutical medicines at jacked-up prices.
Profits over People.
In the case of Vioxx this has shown definitively that profits definitely are more important than people and all the “We Care” crap from Big Pharma is just more marketing bullshit.
And in a recent development highlighting the culture-war perspective of all this, RU-486 was pulled off the market after just a few deaths while Vioxx was kept on the market for years after the link to heart attacks was well-established.Why did it take so long for the FDA to pull the plug on Vioxx, even though it had hard proof the drug was killing thousands of people every year? And, conversely, why was it so quick to issue a warning on RU-486 based on two deaths not even directly connected to the drug? Would money surprise you? Merck was a big contributor to GOP coffers, and they make sure they hire lobbyists with strong ties to the Bush camp. Meanwhile, RU-486 contributed nothing. The company that produces it is not even American, but French. And that company has been the target of anti-choice forces since the day RU-486 first hit the market. The anti-choice Christian right has had some limited success in curtailing the drug's availability, even for medical research into the drug's other possible applications. Anti-choicers were temporarily successful in blocking the drug in the United States, gaining an FDA order that banned the import of RU-486 from 1989 until 1993. Opponents have also launched boycotts against French pharmaceutical company Roussel-Uclaf; the drug maker's German parent company, Hoechst A.G., as well as their American affiliates; and have threatened to boycott any other pharmaceutical company that makes RU-486 available. But RU-486 is so safe and effective, its use in the United States has grown steadily. Then came George W. Bush's re-election on the backs of the Christian right, and two weeks later, the FDA issued its warning on RU-486.The FDA is an agency that is part of the shell game played by the US Federal Government to keep marijuana from being studied, available medically, or re-legalized. And the sheer hypocrisy of it all has been laid bar with a recent pate of reports about vioxx and tolerating so many heart attacks before pulling the plug. The message is, as always, crystal clear: take these dangerous, lucrative drugs and do not smoke the less-harmful free one. The media is rife with references to medical marijuana as "crude", "dirty", "no future", and nowhere is there any meaningful dissent on the topic, outside the dear old Internet. None of the slander regularly dished out on TV is remotely true, but try challenging it in the mainstream media. The utter control of the media by the white House and the GOP is just one more way choice is besieged by people who want to tell you and me what to do, what to believe, and how we should live our lives.
Either you support people’s choice or you support the fascist machinations going on in this country now. You simply can’t have it both ways.
Hence the concept of "war".
Legalize Marijuana, Legalize Freedom: That's what is happening in Brazil
Enough of that for now - Check out my Friend’s Blogs!
Over the past 2-3 years I have been fortunate to meet some very talented and intelligent people in the cannabis reform effort, mainly writers. Check out their blogs!
Cannabis Corner
The Shining Wire
US Marijuana Party
|W|P|110096837839638187|W|P|Personal Choice: The Essence of Freedom|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
Americans.
Republicans.
[zombienote: The "We're not Sorry site has already given up the ghost and changed it name, probably due to the severe lampooning it has received. I am unsure what they expected.]
Ain't sorry|W|P|110055637935773477|W|P|Pictures worth a thousand words.|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
Victim of Reefer Fascism
Reefer madness is fascism, plain and simple. It's the specter of an internal threat to "our kind" (snicker) with the flavor of "either you are with us or against us". It's turned into the War on Drugs and red-ribbon weeks, and the Ideology of the Drug-Free America. And because of the obfuscation of "drugs" with cannabis, drugs supporting terrorism make them and external threat as well. Be afraid.
Media access and a dissenting opinion is the key and this is why the internet is so powerful and why cannabis reform and the net are inextricably intertwined.
If Democrats would just start talking about reform the media would likely - some of it anyway - could and would start talking about change. It's the perfect issue for Dems - they only have to talk right now - they don't actually have to do much. They do need to be sincere though (*gag*). I do, and millions of other do want cannabis re-legalized for free use by responsible adults: we actually want change.
Once the people who get all their news form that damned tv start hearing Dan and Ted and Peter, and Tom talk about the herb and reform efforts, and once they hear about how much money they are being fleeced out of, and how poorly that money is spent, and how much damage is being caused by the use of their money to enforce such horribly bad laws, there will be a hint of change.
There will be a lot more support for politicians who understand that marijuana reform is a winning issue.|W|P|110045236096220985|W|P|Support for cannabis reforms across America|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
ò|W|P|well, I'm italian, 50 years old, two chidren with my wife, I'm musician but after a bad sik at throat I've change and now I'm workin' like informatic. Alwais I've smoke grass, but from 15 years I've stop, because the price, the state, and police. With the birth of my children, now they are 23 and 19, I've stop. Now I think to restart, but I don't want to go and look for marjuana at the corner of the streets, and I don't want to spent a lot of money...it is necessary make somethingh or right and full, but seriously....and I can't know the "how to" make it in Italy, like on the rest of the world.
By
http://pabform.blogspot.com
http://www.bloglines/blog/Betsaide
The focus of this blog is "Cannabis and the Culture War" as the 2 issues are inseperable, despite the lame protets of both the "left" and the "right".
If at no time before, when John Lennon said "Give Peace a chance" pot smoking became permanently linked with the anti-war movement and was placed on the "librull" side of the culture war, despite all the stuffy old "conservatives" trying to claim reform as "conservative issue"
Please.....
At this point marijuana is becoming a mainstream issue as nobody reading this can possibly believe much of the "rightwing" doesn't enjoy pot smoking. The left, as defined by the right, is a bunch of pot-smoking slackers. Pot smoking slackers versus pot-smoking hypocrits.
The fact is pot smoking transcends politics, race, religion, and national origin.
Marijuana reforms won while Dems lost and more people voted for reforms than voted for Bush. Weed trumps Bush...again!
By the way....I heard a good one at "The Smirking Chimp" recently - a "Libertarian" is just a Republican that wants the freedom to smoke pot and have sex. Funny but true.
Repubs do some pretty perverse things yet try to portray themselves as better than other people. Look at the scandals they have had to sweep away in order to howl like banshees about Clinton getting a blowjob.
Nobody died when Clinton lied.
And on that note:
The Freewayblogger is my hero.....|W|P|110013319472928959|W|P|United we stand...my ass.|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com Doc|W|P|Thanx, man!It's my first.
I have become very busy lately and will be updating usually on saturday.
See ya 'round!
"Even as 59 percent of the state's voters were going for George W. Bush and two-thirds opting to ban gay marriage, Montanans were approving Initiative 148, which would allow medical marijuana use by patients with a doctor's recommendation, by a 62-38 percent margin."The criticism that the Democratic Party Leadership wished to be "GOP-lite" versus having it's own identity and sticking to it's progressive values, I think, rings true. The victories for cannabis reform in numerous states are a shining example. The Bush Admin doesn't want to hear about marijuana victories. Somewhere out there a bunch of people voted for Bush and marijuana reform. This is a group that can possibly be
.... for at least the next two years, the President can get passed almost anything he wants to. His congressional majorities are now sufficiently padded that he can even afford a few Republican defections. He simply doesn't need Democrats for anything. And that means approaching most legislative battles not with an eye toward preventing passage or significantly altering legislation, but placing alternatives on the table that the party will be able use as contrasts to frame the next two elections. In other words, their only remaining viable alternative is to be an actual party of opposition.I used to say that Bush was like a thousand Nixon’s. I was right, but I am still rather amazed at the sheer scope of lying, and illegal and unconstitutional activities going unchecked. This all requires the attention of the Dems and investigations should intensify. The People support medical marijuana reform and this can and should be linked to the GOP support for the Pharms that gouge us and make us take FDA-Approved (dangerous but profitable) drugs while storm-trooping the medical marijuana community and the will of the People.
"Culture war is not our biggest problem," says John Sajo. "I think we could legalize marijuana if our constituents actually made up a movement." The biggest problem, he believes, is the "complacency and apathy" of the nation's tokers. The decriminalization movement is now funded largely by a handful of wealthy benefactors, because "the average pot smoker doesn't have the consciousness that they have to pay for it," he says. "If every pot smoker donated half of what they spent on marijuana, we'd have a war chest in the billions." linkI beg to differ about the culture war assessment: I think what he says it right except that the culture war is a huge part of it. The Culture War is what was exacerbated by the Bush Admin, so it is totally with us, but cannabis reform is starting to be a crossover issue. Even rightwing extremists smoke pot and don't want to be ruined or killed by the police for smoking it. (They don't see the GOP's seething hatred of marijuana: I just blame Bill Clinton for prohibition, I guess...)
The first thing Democrats must try to grasp as they cast their eyes over the smoking ruins of the election is the continuing power of the culture wars. Thirty-six years ago, President Richard Nixon championed a noble "silent majority" while his vice president, Spiro Agnew, accused liberals of twisting the news. In nearly every election since, liberalism has been vilified as a flag-burning, treason-coddling, upper-class affectation. This year voters claimed to rank "values" as a more important issue than the economy and even the war in Iraq. And yet, Democrats still have no coherent framework for confronting this chronic complaint, much less understanding it. Instead, they "triangulate," they accommodate, they declare themselves converts to the Republican religion of the market, they sign off on Nafta and welfare reform, they try to be more hawkish than the Republican militarists. And they lose. And they lose again. Meanwhile, out in Red America, the right-wing populist revolt continues apace, its fury at the "liberal elite" undiminished by the Democrats' conciliatory gestures or the passage of time. linkThe Dems CAN take up the gauntlet like the shameless opportunists they are and make cannabis reform a central plank, wooing a very diverse base including agriculture, manufacturing, medical, and the average person who just likes to smoke sometimes and thinks its simply stupid he or she has to worry about the loss of jobs, housing, belonging, financial ruination form court proceeding, harassment by police, or being shot to death. All those things happen to people who want to smoke or be near marijuana plants. The Dems have a tool and refuse to use it n their vain attempt to be GOP-lite. Realize that the GOP cannot talk about marijuana for more than 3 minutes before resorting to the reefer mad propaganda constructions of terrorism and Satan. This issue is an absolute Achille's Heel ffor the GOP. They are too mean-spirited and crosseyed intheir hatred of marijuana to be able to appear rational on the issue. The Dems can run far with this if they only take up the issue. The GOP most likely cannot head them off by legalizing or whatever, before the Dems profit from the maneuver. Marijuana prohibition is just too central to the GOP. The Dems have a clear winning option ready to go; all they have to do is start talking about it. They don't have much else to lose and even fewer ideas. |W|P|109974954235718205|W|P|Marijuana Won while Democrats lost.|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com
"Merck did not recall Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor taken by about 20 million Americans, from the worldwide market until five weeks ago. ****** "The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of unambiguous evidence of harm have been public-health catastrophes,""Take expensive and dangerous pharmaceutical medications, but don't smoke cannabis. What the hell kind of sense does that make? |W|P|109961926755820753|W|P|It's all about the profit...|W|P|xxdr_zombiexx@yahoo.com