Hinchey - Rohrabacher Bill fails allowing prosecution of the ill

[freethefly 6]

I heard one politician say that passing this would send the "wrong message to the children that drugs are okay". Yet, pumping a patient full of narcotics that leaves them bedridden seems to be okay with them. Shoving Ritalin down a childs throat is okay with them. Putting ill people in prison is okay with them.
At this point, I cannot see any need for separate states as states have zero rights to conduct their business as the majority feels. Federal involvement on state rights smashes any hopes for a true democracy.

House OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions
Posted by CN Staff on June 28, 2006 at 16:56:04 PT
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
Source: Associated Press

Washington, DC -- The House on Wednesday voted to continue to allow federal prosecution of those who smoke marijuana for medical purposes in states with laws that permit it.
A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users, even when state laws allow doctor-prescribed use of the drug.

By a 259-163 vote, the House again turned down an amendment that would have blocked the Justice Department from prosecuting people in the 11 states with such medical marijuana laws.

Advocates say medical marijuana use is the only way that many chronically ill people, such as AIDS and cancer patients, can relieve their symptoms.

The vote came as the House debated a $59.8 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State.

"If the voters have seen to it and a doctor agrees, it's a travesty for the government to intercede ... to get in the way of someone using something to alleviate their suffering," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. "This is something that should be left to the states as American tradition dictates."

"Marijuana is not harmless as some claim," said Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa. "Marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the United States."

Opponents of the amendment said Marinol, a government-approved prescription drug that contains the active ingredient in marijuana, offers comparable relief for pain and nausea.
(I have used Marinol in the past. It sometimes took up to 4 hours before it took effect, if it worked at all. FtF)

Eight states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — have legalized medical marijuana by voter referendums. The legislatures of three others — Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont — have legalized the practice

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
Published: Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Associated Press

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[justinb138 0]

Quote

"Marijuana is not harmless as some claim," said Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa. "Marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the United States."

Ugh... I wonder which pharmaceutical company is paying this guy. I'd venture a guess that Alcohol is the most widely abused drug.

[lawrocket 3]

And we have the SCOTUS to thank for this. Thank you, progressive and "mainsteam' justices, for finding that the commerce clause could make a federal law banning pissing in public allowable under the commerce clause, for if everyone did it, obviously, there would be a possible effect on interstate commerce. I mean, you can't say that there is no way that pissing in public would not have any possible or conceivable effect on interstate commerce, however slight. You know, if a person pees in public, they have decided against using a sewer, which has an effect on interstate commerce, so let's make it a federal offense. Yeah! That's the ticket!

State Police Powers and Ninth and Tenth Amendements? Just ancient ideals of Dead White Men.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

That is exactly what just happened, that is sad that they can use one part of the constitution to negate another.

[lawrocket 3]

But it's a new day, a new age. Why, people and states must rely on the strong and powerful federal government. If there's a hurricane approaching, the feds need to have the power to save you. Don't save yourself. Don't rely on cities or states (amateurs). Rely on the feds to get you through.

It works both ways. If not for the power of the commerce clause to regulate your daily activites, the feds wouldn't be able to help you like they did with Katrina.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

And we have the SCOTUS to thank for this. Thank you, progressive and "mainsteam' justices, for finding that the commerce clause could make a federal law banning pissing in public allowable under the commerce clause, for if everyone did it, obviously, there would be a possible effect on interstate commerce. I mean, you can't say that there is no way that pissing in public would not have any possible or conceivable effect on interstate commerce, however slight. You know, if a person pees in public, they have decided against using a sewer, which has an effect on interstate commerce, so let's make it a federal offense. Yeah! That's the ticket!

State Police Powers and Ninth and Tenth Amendements? Just ancient ideals of Dead White Men.

Didn't this slippery slope start with the first act to control drugs in America?

At a time when Coca Cola's main ingredient was cocaine congress pretty much thought their hands were tied until some smart ass came up with the idea of taxing and controlling these substances under the commerce clause. It was seen as a radical and tennuous stretch at the time.

It's amazing to think how recently this was (between world wars AFAIK).

It's like a completely different country now, and it could have gone the other way. Listening to the history and debate at the time it's absolutely stunning how people's attitudes have changed in a couple of generations. Many Americans now just expect the Federal monster to get it's tentacles into everything as if they just don't know about the country they're part of.

If Lincoln had seen this coming he'd have surrendered to Lee without firing a shot.

[lawrocket 3]

I believe it was 1906. Yes, states used to have the full control over what the doctors prescribed. Teh Feds were powerless to do anything about it until someone thought up, "What about the Commerce Clause?" Now, previous to that, the commerce clause was pretty narrowly construed. But this was the progessive era.

One of the reasons for it was a fear of Negroes on drugs. It also added the first labeling requirements, which was to help get rid of the patent medicines.

It's actually an example of how legislation grows and grows in reach.

"We need to ban drugs like opium and cocaine on a national level."
"We can't do that. That's up to the states."
"There's this commerce clause thingy. We can use that to ban it."
"No. People wouldn't go for such a taking of power."
"Okay. We'll make a requirement that all foods and medicines must label what's in them. Even though it's really not proper, who's gonna argue with making the rich tell the people what's in their stuff?"
"Great! Once people see what's in the stuff, they won't buy it."

A few years later (late 30's)
"Shit. That didn't work. People now see the labels and go for the cocaine."
"Well, here's what we do. We ban cocaine and opium. Tell the people that Negroes are raping white women on it, and some states don't care. We'll mount a press campaign."
"But we don't have the power to do that."
"I know, but we already put in labelling. People won't mind moving a step further, especially if we let tell them it's to stopped crazed Negroes. And, FDR has loaded the court with judges who will let us do what's good for people who don't know what's good for them"
"Good plan. But what about legitimate uses?"
"We'll allow them to be prescribed by doctors."
"SWEET!"

A few years later (late 60's)
"Damned hippies. They're all taking drugs, which makes them not follow rules. That's why they are protesting the war - they'll stoned."
"Well, why don't we do something about the drugs? We get the drugs outta their hands, they'll conform."
"We tried. Doctors can still prescribe them."
"Okay. Here's what we do. We'll put heroin, LSD, peyote, hash, marijuana, and mushrooms on a list of drugs that have no legitimate medical purpose."
"But some of those DO have legitimate purposes."
"Not if we say they don't. We'll get the FDA to back us up."
"What about other drugs?"
"Well, we'll put them in categories."
"But can we really do this?"
"Oh, yeah. With FDR's time and now the Warren court, commerce-clause power is here to stay."
"But they are developing new drugs all the time. It'll take an Act of Congress to ban each one."
"Nope. We'll give the authority to the FDA to decide for each drug. Just make regulations instead of laws. If people have questions about it, they're screwed!"
"You know? We should create our own police force for this to to shut up those hippie bastards via drug laws."
"Now you're talking. We'll promote it with Elvis being deputized."

Early 80's...
"Drugs are still rampant. We put them in jail, and they are still around. Disco died, but drugs didn't."
"Well, let's put all users in jail for a long time. That'll make them think twice."
"But those judges give the a slap on the wrist."
"Well, then, mandatory sentences. Long ones!"
"But that doesn't sound good. Sounds draconian."
"Well, let's put in something that doubles the penalty for drug dealers near schools. People will support that, and it'll cover the other stuff."

Now we are at..
"These states allowing medical marijuana. Impinging on federal power. Too bad we can't bust people for growing their own supply and smoking weed."
"They said in 1906 we couldn't do it. Well, let's try again. WOO HOO! Hippies will be hating this."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Just turn all of the marijuana over to a drug company so they canmake a profit off of it.. and see how fast the Republican Congress and Administration will flip flop on this issue and be touting the great effects it has for its users.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Eight states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — have legalized medical marijuana by voter referendums. The legislatures of three others — Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont — have legalized the practice

Who thinks that the same people who use state ballot and legislative results to argue for a federal ban on gay marriage think the above results should not tie the federal governments hands when it comes to drugs? If popular opinion agrees with them, then the fed's should use it to usurp state rights and ban an activity they're against, but if popular opinion is against their thoughts, well it should be ignored and the federal government should usurp state rights and ban the activity anyhow. Interesting how it's the Republicans who are opposed to states rights and who are taking the "there should be a law" stance on these issues. Just goes to show that both major parties are liberal at their core.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)