[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Activism See other Activism Articles Title: URGENT: Medical marijuana vote in Congress next week! Source: Marijuana Policy Project URL Source: http://www.mpp.org Published: Jun 8, 2005 Author: Rob Kampia Post Date: 2005-06-10 02:48:00 by Neil McIver Ping List: *Marijuana Policy Project*     Subscribe to *Marijuana Policy Project* Keywords: marijuana, Congress, URGENT: Views: 32 Comments: 1 Would you please take one minute to visit the Marijuana Policy Project's easy online system -- http://hinchey.kintera.org -- to ask your Congressperson to vote for the medical marijuana amendment that the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on next week? If you have already contacted your representative, please visit http://hinchey.kintera.org/friend to send an alert to five or more of your friends who want to see medical marijuana patients freed from the fear of arrest and imprisonment. Please tell them to act now! In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling on Monday, it's more important than ever that we push Congress to protect patients from arrest and jail. (Visit http://www.mpp.org/raich for background on the ruling.) The federal government has boldly and unremorsefully raided seriously ill patients (and their caregivers) who are using medical marijuana in compliance with their states' laws. Now is your chance to help bring an end to these raids by visiting http://hinchey.kintera.org to urge your U.S. representative to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment ... which would bar the U.S. Justice Department from raiding, arresting, or prosecuting medical marijuana patients who are complying with state laws. MPP's goal is to generate 10,000 letters to the U.S. House by the time of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher vote next week, but we won't be able to achieve that goal without your help. THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW The time is ripe for change! Since Monday's Supreme Court ruling, hits to MPP's Web site have more than tripled. The story was covered in every major newspaper in the country. MPP staffers were interviewed on CNN, MSNBC, Cox TV, Comcast syndicated TV, AP radio, ABC radio, Pacifica Radio, Bloomberg Radio, Sirius Satellite Radio, and multiple local TV and radio shows, and MPP's comments appeared in print in the Baltimore Sun, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor, and on Salon.com. In the wake of the decision, some of the nation's leading newspapers -- including the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the San Francisco Chronicle -- are issuing strong calls for Congress to take action. The Los Angeles Times wrote: "Blame for (patients') suffering now lies squarely with Congress and the president ... there is almost no debate about the cruel stupidity of refusing an exception for medical marijuana. Unless the president and Congress wish to appear (even more) cruel and stupid, they should trump the Supreme Court." Visit http://www.mpp.org/USA/news.html to read more. And in a rebuke to the Supreme Court, the Rhode Island Senate passed MPP's medical marijuana bill yesterday by a crushing 34-2 vote -- a record margin for any vote on medical marijuana legislation in any state House or Senate in the country in at least the last decade. URGENT: TAKE ACTION TODAY! Please visit http://hinchey.kintera.org to send a free fax or e-mail asking your Congressperson to vote "yes" on the medical marijuana amendment scheduled to come to the House floor for a vote next week. It will only take a minute, but it could have a huge impact on medical marijuana policy nationwide. Then, help us build on this momentum by visiting http://hinchey.kintera.org/friend to ask your friends to take action today. Thank you, Rob Kampia Executive Director Marijuana Policy Project Washington, D.C. P.S. Contrary to some misleading news reports, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not strike down medical marijuana laws in California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington. Rather, the Court has maintained the status quo: Patients and caregivers in these states who legitimately possess or grow medical marijuana are protected under state law, but are not exempt from prosecution under federal law. Since federal agents make only 1% of our nation's 750,000 marijuana arrests every year, state medical marijuana laws reduce patients' risk of arrest by 99 percent. Visit http://www.mpp.org/raich/next.html to read more. Subscribe to *Marijuana Policy Project* Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Neil McIver (#0) Here's the Los Angeles Times editorial mentioned in this article. EDITORIAL Unconstitutional Cannabis June 7, 2005 If this editorial board were Congress, we would enact a law allowing marijuana to be used for legitimate medical purposes, such as alleviating intense pain for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. In fact, we strongly urge Congress to pass such a law, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "compassionate-use" laws in California and other states are invalid under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution. But we are not Congress — and neither is the Supreme Court. So we cannot be terribly offended by Monday's ruling, however much needless suffering it may cause. Blame for that suffering now lies squarely with Congress and the president. The nation's draconian drug laws have lost a safety valve. Many of today's national leaders have personal experience with the effects of the evil weed. So do many of today's voters. There is much debate about the wisdom of the drug laws. By contrast, there is almost no debate about the cruel stupidity of refusing an exception for medical marijuana. Unless the president and Congress wish to appear (even more) cruel and stupid, they should trump the Supreme Court. Before you get indignant at the Supreme Court, however, think about how you might have reacted in the reverse situation. Suppose Congress did as we asked and enacted a federal law allowing compassionate use of marijuana. And suppose that California continued to arrest doctors and patients under its own drug laws, which had no such exception. Would you have said: "Well, that's federalism for you?" Or would you have found the arguments of the majority in this case, Gonzales vs. Raich, strangely compelling? The commerce clause authorizes the federal government to regulate trade within the U.S. and abroad. For decades, during and after the New Deal, this clause became the all-purpose authority for anything the federal government wanted to do, or to prevent individual states from doing. Sometimes this was a stretch. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, for instance, was justified constitutionally by the need to regulate interstate commerce. Federalism and the commerce clause bring out the hypocrite in all of us. If you're against some government policy, you tend to believe that the problem would be better handled at the state level. If you're for it, you believe that it is one of the nation's core functions and must be addressed nationally. There are enough contradictory Supreme Court declarations to allow either case to be made. In the tired arguments of the last century about the courts and the Constitution, it has usually been liberals with ambitious national agendas favoring a strong commerce clause that clears away the underbrush of state laws in their path. Meanwhile, conservatives have defended the sanctity of "states' rights." When the issue is the medical use of marijuana, the siren song of states' rights tempts liberals and libertarians, while more mainstream conservatives are happy — on this occasion — to see the jackboots of Washington come stomping on the prerogatives of Sacramento. Thus Gonzales vs. Raich is an excellent litmus test of intellectual integrity. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas pass the test. They dissented from Monday's ruling on the grounds that the federal government has no right to force its drug policy on the state of California. We want to pass the test too. Given how many policies this page has happily urged the federal government to impose on … well, Alabama and Mississippi and South Carolina, if not California, that clearly means supporting the court's decision. robin  posted on  2005-06-10   7:29:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]