BTW Big Daddy ... beautiful, very kind bud on your original post. Reminds me of my college days.
http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net5/bongsmi.gif


MM
~~Reminiscing

I think htismaqe is right on the money. And besides all of the possible uses for hemp that we know of there are probably many more we have yet to discover because it is illegal. I bet we could make a damn fine piece of particle board out of hemp biproducts. Of course that would keep the lumber industry honest if they had some competition. It's just like the petroleum industry. Every now and then they just jack up the prcies so they can make more money. And sense we don't have any allternatives we just have to pay what they ask. I never was much for "Tree Huggers" but if they realized how many trees could be "saved" by making paper products out of hemp I bet they would raise a big stink.

PhilFree

Leave it to 8 old farts from both parties to do the wrong thing.

To say that the SC has the power to overturn Congressional legislation on the basis of medical evidence offered at a trial is truly sad. I don't mean to sound snarky, but WTF is up with blaming this on the SC? Congress could not have been more clear and when Congress acts within its powers, that's the ballgame.

So if I could assemble a lineup of socialogical experts to testify that the Civil Rights Act is ineffective, I could get that repealed through the SC?

So if I could assemble a lineup of environmental experts to put into question the efficacy of envirnmental regulations, I could get those repealed too?

So if I could assemble a lineup of doctors to testify that life begins at conception, bye-bye Roe-v-Wade. . . wait, the SC put that one into law.

That's right, Congress and the lobbying process is so effed-up that we should cede all power to experts for hire and the SC.

Interesting discussion, but one I'm not really qualified to contribute to. I will, however respond to Mark M. in post #29. As a synthetic chemist I take issue with the claim that anything natural is better than its synthetic version.

For example, cocaine, when 100% purified from it's natural source, is absolutely no different than cocaine made in the lab. Polyester and cotton are two different materials, thus it is notaccurate to compare them. Cotton, if it could be synthesized, would be identical in every regard to the natural substance.

There could be many reasons why smoking an actual joint is more efective than taking a pill containing the active ingredient. Two off the top of my head are:

1. Inhaling the active ingredient is a more effective way of delivering it into the blood stream.

2. Other components of the plants, while themselves are NOT active, act in a synergistic manner with the active ingredients providing a more powerful drug.

I apoligize for getting off the subject, but the 'natural is better than synthetic' argument is a pet peeve of mine.

The legalization of Hemp should have more to do with industry and supplying the general public with goods made from it as oppossed to just smoking it. I suggested on another thread that instead of the government paying farmers subsidies to let part of their land go fallow they should let them grow Hemp to make useful products for the masses. Just think how many peices of paper hit the trash can each day in our country. How much toilet paper we use (well most of us) every day as a country? Hell, I bet they could use biproducts from hemp to make a very nice casing to house the hard-drives we are using as we speak. The list goes on and on.

PhilFree

In order for medicinal marijuana to pass, the pro-madicinal marijuana people need to get rid of their embarrassing supporters. I also was at the Veet's lecture with T-11. This is the leader of Missouri's chapter of NORML. For him to publicly tell a college criminal justice class that the purposes of pushing medicinal marijuana is a "bullet" for the over all legalization is an embarrassment to your cause. You need to reduce these sandbags to advance in your fight.

Mark
I usually find myself in agreement with you on many casses, but your statement on the research of marijuana is a stretch. Marijuana IS being widely researched. Just because the research doesn't always prove what people want it to doesn't mean that it isn't taking place.

Johnny,

There's a point here that seems to have been missed.

The Supreme Court is at fault for upholding that federal laws SUPERCEDE state laws in a case where the state clearly has jurisdiction.

This is clearly politically motivated. Why would the federal government be so interested in shutting these coops down when they aren't the body responsible for enforcing the laws?

Because California statute states that marijuana can be legally prescribed for "cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

I take migraine medicine and it costs FOUR DOLLARS PER PILL. The manufacturer was also a key contributor to several Republican congressional candidates.

It's not illegal because it's wrong, it's illegal because it threatens the stranglehold that large corporations have over our everyday lives.

The Supreme Court is at fault because Congress NEVER MENTIONED marijuana in the law in question.

This is a quote from Clarence Thomas:

It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative’s argument.

In writing for the court, Thomas said Congress had deliberately excluded marijuana when it enacted anti-drug laws. Do they know that for sure? If that's the case why is the SC retrospectively INCLUDING it now?

It sounds to me like they ARE altering legislation, even as they hide under the guise that they are not.

Couple of things before big brother catches me ...

JC--
I am not necessarily blaming the Supreme Court. You are correct that it is not their fault that Congress makes some stupid laws. The only way that it can be changed is for Congress to do so. I just found it sad that the SC used Congress as a means to justify the status quo, rather than saying that perhaps Congress made a mistake. It has happened before.

donk--
Sorry to hit a nerve. But I was under the impression that, when it comes to medicine the natural version (i.e morphine from the poppy plant) is more effective than synthetic versions due to the other chemicals which occur in the natural version. And I was in a hurry ... it was only later that the polyester vs. cotton thing hit me as being incorrect. Thanks for the correction.

47--
According to guy on NPR, as well as a few websites I checked last night (I'll have to get on at home and copy and paste the links) who has done research with marijuana, it is very, very difficult to get permission from the government. Also, if there has been such a huge push in the last few years for medicinal marijuana, then why aren't there researchers everywhere trying to prove whether it does good or not? It just isn't happening as much as people think.

MM
~~Can admit when he is wrong, but likes being right.

Look closely, h. I would bet that the manufactuer of that $4 pill also contributed heavily to the Democratic party as well.

Mark M - as best they could, by illuminating the role of Congress and how the SC is constrained by that role, the SC IS hinting that Congress perhaps made a mistake. they can't be openly critical in a case like this because it doesn't tread on a Consititutional issue, but they can say "hey, its THEIR rule" which is what they did.

htis - explain to me how the state has clear jurisdiction here. That is an argument not even the respondent's made. The Controlled Substances Act places marijuana in a schedule 1. Schedule 1 has but one express expection, government approved research. by expressing/enumerating this one, sole exception, Congress made clear that other 'implied' exceptions were verboten.

ie., if no exceptions were listed at all, one could argue that Congress neglected to consider that aspect and common law principles could be applied. But since Congress made a list, one must accept the principle that that they considered all options in forming that list and any exceptions NOT listed were rejected. Statutory Construction 101.

BTW - marijuana [marihuana] IS listed in 21 USC 812(c) as a schedule 1 drug, thus constrained by the limitations placed on schedule 1 substances in 21 USC 841 [The Controlled Substances Act]. I don't get where you say that "Congress had deliberately excluded marijuana when it enacted anti-drug laws."

The real question is, why was Hemp placed in a scheduale 1 to begin with? Is it really that dangerous?

PhilFree

Schedule 1 is a farce. The federal governement assumed control under the false pretenses of "interstate transport". If I grow something at my house and sell it to my neighbor, that transaction is governed over by my local and state sales statutes -- unless it happens to be marijuana.

I don't dispute what you're saying as fact, but I'm trying to point our here that the federal government has no right to legislate in this area. It's a state issue.

As far as the contents of Schedule 1, I merely reprinted the comments of Clarence Thomas.

JC--
Looks like we were agreeing, just didn't seem that way.

Ahhh ... the limits of the English language! :D

MM
~~Practicing the art of the hit and run post.

Big Daddy
 

WOW...I actually thought we would never agree on anything...funny how after all the bickering we do have something in common