SCOUTS to hear Medical Marijuana case today

[question]

WASHINGTON - Monday morning, the U.S Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that will clear the air on the legality of medical marijuana use. Eleven states allow the practice, but federal law enforcement agencies say its against the law.

In this case, patients and states are going up against the federal government. Now, the Supreme Court is stepping in to decide who's right.

Angel Raich is a wife, mother and marijuana user. She suffers from a number of conditions, including a brain tumor. Her doctor says marijuana is the only medicine of almost three dozen that helps ease the pain and promotes an appetite that prevents her from wasting away.

Raich lives in California, one of 11 states that have no problem with that. The Bush administration does. It says those state laws violate federal drug rules and that marijuana has no medical value. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides.

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University Law Professor, says, "The question is whether or not the federal government can -- against the wishes of the doctor, against the wishes of the patients and against the wishes of the state -- can enforce federal narcotics law against a person who is using medical marijuana with a physician's advice and agreement to alleviate symptoms."

Raich says no matter what the Supreme Court decides, she will not stop smoking.

Besides California; Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington State allow marijuana to be used as medicine with a doctor's recommendation.

[taken from: WMTW 8 News]

[question]

Rhenquist is working from home undergoing radiation and chemotherapy. I wonder if his cancer treatment will give him any kind of personal perspective on the situation? Perhaps he will try smoking some pot?

Originally Posted by question

Rhenquist is working from home undergoing radiation and chemotherapy. I wonder if his cancer treatment will give him any kind of personal perspective on the situation? Perhaps he will try smoking some pot?

Its prolly painful to smoke when you've got cancer in your throat.

[question]

That's what vaporizors are for =)

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Its prolly painful to smoke when you've got cancer in your throat.

Originally Posted by question

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University Law Professor, says, "The question is whether or not the federal government can -- against the wishes of the doctor, against the wishes of the patients and against the wishes of the state -- can enforce federal narcotics law against a person who is using medical marijuana with a physician's advice and agreement to alleviate symptoms."

I think that's not at all the question the courts will consider. I think that's a line a law school prof uses to get quoted in the press.

I think the issue is whether or not the doctrine of preemption will prevail in this case. There is little reason to think it won't. The Federal government has clearly occupied the field by banning marijuana and classifying it as a narcotic. That being the case, conflicting state laws will fail.

Originally Posted by question

That's what vaporizors are for =)

he still has to breath in smoke

[question]

Obviously you've never used a vaporizor. There is no smoke. Only vapor.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

he still has to breath in smoke

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by question

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University Law Professor, says, "The question is whether or not the federal government can -- against the wishes of the doctor, against the wishes of the patients and against the wishes of the state -- can enforce federal narcotics law against a person who is using medical marijuana with a physician's advice and agreement to alleviate symptoms."

This is what worries me. Of course the federal government can do that. Federal law has supremacy over state law, and federal law says that marijuana has no medicinal value. So we'll see.

It's really fucked up that such a benign substance would require such a ridiculous uphill legal battle just for the right to use it as a pain reliever and appetite stimulant. After seeing the hell my grandmother went through with the legal prescriptions, it blows my mind that anyone would favor that and keep medicinal marijuana illegal. Except of course for the companies producing those drugs and overcharging us for them.....

Originally Posted by question

Raich says no matter what the Supreme Court decides, she will not stop smoking.

Exactly, so what's the point of putting these people in jail, fining them, raiding the producers that distribute to medicinal marijuana users??

[IrishRaver]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Its prolly painful to smoke when you've got cancer in your throat.

2 things...hookahs..and ice bongs..solves the problem right there...

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by question

Obviously you've never used a vaporizor. There is no smoke. Only vapor.

Magic Brownies!


No smoke!

Originally Posted by question

Obviously you've never used a vaporizor. There is no smoke. Only vapor.

haha

no, I haven't

[question]

When you're vomiting, brownies are hard to keep down.

Originally Posted by Big Andy

Magic Brownies!


No smoke!

Originally Posted by IrishRaver

2 things...hookahs..and ice bongs..solves the problem right there...

the issue is the fact that smoke is an irritant - the heat (reduced by water or ice) is merely one element

[HarleyDelight]

Yes, but the bud is a lot more brittle once the thc is removed. You go from sticky icky to dry popcorn with a vaporizer. I have a friend that makes and sells them here in LA (Venice...go figure..) and they sell like hot cakes to patients with cancer. Vaporizers give you much more of a "high" too, ummmm in my clinical experiments.