I Love This Court Case!

[YourHighness]

Well .. your first post here was to support the DEA.

 

If you have paid attention at all then you can see I cannot stand Obama. AND I could not stand BUSH. Like I said I am an anarchist. Well, maybe a libertarian. However, that does not mean I cannot point out individual acts by either president that I agree with. I can. But doing so does not mean I SUPPORT them now does it?? Similarly, when I point out that your "lie" theory wouldn't work how does that mean I SUPPORT the DEA? To say I support the DEA because i don't agree with your reasoning is kind of the same as a kindergarten argument where Johnny says to Sara, "Yeah well, I don't care if I stole your lunch money because, well, you're UGLY." So you may as well call me ugly. Won't be the first time I've heard that anyway...

 

Basically what you are saying is that EVERYONE has to agree with you OR support the DEA? Those are the only 2 options?

[peanutbutter]

First off, the case wasn't about the accepted use of an existing medicine. The case was about whether there was a condition that existed to even be treated a certain way. I think you are missing the point of the case. There is a major distinction that you are missing between your argument and the reasoning in the case.

 

Very good ..

 

I believe you raised the point about the use of schedule II drugs. Now you are saying it isn't about the drugs but about the way the drugs are used. Either way, the court ruled that the DEA does not determine what is acceptable.

 

 

If I were a Dr. and I prescribed you anti-biotics to swallow in an effort to make your lawn green then that would be absurd. That was this case. The Dr. prescribed medicine to kill someone. It was the killing, just like the lawn, that was at issue and considered absurd by the AG. The AG argued that killing someone is not a legitimate medical purpose and, therefore, the Dr. shouldn't have been prescribing drugs for it since, under the CSA and resulting federal regulations, prescribing a scheduled drug requires that it only be prescribed to treat a legit. medical condition. The result would have been the same regardless of what drug was prescribed to hasten death because it wasn't an issue of the drug it was an issue of whether ANY drug that needs to be prescribed can be used for the purpose of killing. In other words, is prescribing that drug being done in an effort to TREAT someone. The argument was that killing someone is not treating them and therefore killing someone was not a legitimate medical purpose for which a prescribed drug should be used.

 

You insist in using the word "legitimate" when the court was talking about "accepted."

 

This was the ruling in the case:

 

Held: The CSA does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure. Pp. 8—28.

 

Dictum by the court in the opinion (discussions) is not binding precedent. Only the ruling is precedent. The ruling is narrowly tailored and you cannot simply substitute your own words just because it seems like a good analogy.

 

Like substituting the word "legitimate" for "accepted?"

 

The ruling, boiled down, said that the AG does not have the authority to decide what is a legitimate medical purpose. The state of Oregon decided what a legit. med. purpose was and that's that.

 

There's that pesky word "legitimate" again.

 

But you cannot extrapolate that ruling to whether the AG (aka the justice dept, aka the DEA) can make a decision regarding scheduling of drugs based on the "acceptable medical use" standard.

 

Let's save some time. The words I'm mixing are "use" and "purpose." Not "legitimate" or "accepted."

 

This is because congress HAS delegated authority through the enabling statute to let them decide what drugs do have an acceptable medical use. As you correctly point out there is NO enabling legislation that allows the feds to regulate what is a legitimate medical purpose and THAT is why the court ruled as they did.

 

Again .. not "legitimate" but rather "accepted."

 

However, there IS enabling legislation that allows the feds to regulate scheduling. Accepted medical use doesn't mean whether your aunt mary or your family doctor or the MDCH or the surgeon general would consider MM a drug with an accepted medical use. It is a term of art and basically it means there is an accepted medical use if the feds say there is one.

 

However .. there is NO enabling section that allows them to determine "acceptable." They do not determine what is "acceptable."

 

They are supposed to schedule based on clear sets of facts. They are required by the CSA to apply existing acceptance or lack thereof. They were not enabled to define what is acceptable. That power was not included within the CSA. They have assumed that authority by themselves.

 

For these reasons this case does not apply to the scheduling of MM.

 

And I believe that this issue may be more than the ASA wishes to bring into their case.

 

FYI these are just facts so don't jump my hump and accuse me of being a mole, etc. I WANT mj rescheduled but my point is that this case offers no help in crossing that bridge.

 

Heck, I don't think you are any kind of mole. I've just been wanting to debate this case for a long time now. Thanks for stopping in!

[peanutbutter]

Really? My post SUPPORTS the DEA? And if I said that the DEA exists then that means I support them too?

What if I said the DEA busted a meth lab, would that mean i support them?

What if I said Lex Luthor walks on green at the traffic crossing and doesn't walk when the red hand lights? Does that mean I SUPPORT him?

No. All that would mean is that I am stating facts and that's all I did was state facts about the DEA.

I'm an anarchist at heart. I support very little the federal government does. But that doesn't mean I cannot reason.

As far as what I do--construction. But does that make what I have to say less worthy?

I consider myself well-read and I can reason. That's all I have going for me.

And work for the DEA--again, I spit on even the THOUGHT of that. The DEA attracts a certain undesirable element of our society. Mainly people who want that instant gratification of the power they feel when they bust someone. Just like cops. Most cops are just power-hungry intellectual mini-men. They have no power in reality but love the perception of power they get when they drive by in uniform. And they love the fact that the poor, or uneducated, or timid don't know enough to stand up to them. How many times have you contested a traffic ticket and got it dismissed or lowered? Plenty for me. But do the poor even know to try that? No. Don't get me started on law enforcement.

I'm an anrachist left over from the punk movement in the 70's. But, like I said, it doesn't mean I eat up what people say--you or the government.

 

OK .. sorry I got it wrong.

[peanutbutter]

OK, Highness ..

 

You were right and I was wrong about the word accepted vs legitimate.

 

Went back and read the CSA again.

 

I won't forget the next time. thanks

[YourHighness]

1

[+RevThad]

OK, Highness ..

 

You were right and I was wrong about the word accepted vs legitimate.

 

Went back and read the CSA again.

 

I won't forget the next time. thanks

The CSA definitely uses the word accepted...

 

(b) Placement on schedules; findings required

Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

 

(1) Schedule I. -

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

© There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

 

I simply cannot see how marijuana qualifies under either of (B) or ©, as far as (A) goes that seems a bit more subjective.

[peanutbutter]

1

 

Oh .. about that law that congress would be sure to pass:

 

Washington, DC: Congress Won't Overturn District's New Marijuana Dispensary Law

Share This Article

 

Washington, DC: Members of Congress have declined to overrule legislation passed by the D.C. City Council in May authorizing the establishment of regulated medical marijuana dispensaries in the District of Columbia.

 

Congressional lawmakers had up to 30 working days to reject the law. That review period officially ended earlier this week.

 

In June, a pair of Republican House members, Reps. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) and Jim Jordan (Ohio) introduced legislation to overturn D.C.'s medical marijuana law, stating, "Marijuana is a psychotropic drug classified under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act as having 'high potential for abuse,' 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,' and a 'lack of accepted safety for use of the drug...under medical supervision.'"

 

Their effort failed to gain any significant support in Congress.

 

Under the new law, D.C. Health Department officials will oversee the creation of up to eight facilities to dispense medical cannabis to authorized patients. Medical dispensaries would be limited to growing no more than 95 plants on site at any one time.

 

Both non-profit and for-profit organizations will be eligible to operate the dispensaries.

 

Qualifying D.C. patients will be able to obtain medical cannabis at these facilities, but will not be permitted under the law to grow their own medicine.

 

A separate provision enacted as part of the 2011 D.C. budget calls for the retail sales of medical cannabis to be subject to the District's six percent sales tax rate. Low-income patients will be allowed to purchase medical marijuana at a greatly reduced cost under the plan.

 

It will likely be several months before Health officials begin accepting applications from the public to operate the City's medical marijuana production and distribution centers.

 

The newly enacted legislation amends Initiative 59 – a 1998 D.C. medical marijuana ballot measure that garnered 69 percent of the vote. City lawmakers had been barred from instituting the measure because of a Congressional ban prohibiting District officials from liberalizing municipal marijuana laws. Congress finally lifted the ban in 2009.

 

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, or Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel, at (202) 483-5500. A more detailed summary of the law is available online at: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391.

 

 

1 back atcha

[herb green]

I dont even want it rescheduled!...cocaine is schedule 2

 

I think the DEA goes after that pretty aggressively

 

It needs to be OFF the flippin' list...Its an herb...a straight up, fall off the plant...herb

 

What else on the schedule other than mushrooms which dont belong either are... well, and peyote... we know how addictive and dangerous wide spread peyote use can be!...what else is really just a plant and not chemical derivitive?...not many

 

Legislation to remove medicinal plants from DEA schedule would be my goal

 

These things are illegal for political reasons...Dont they have the tape of Nixon saying they needed a way to arrest protesters with out directly and blantly violating their 1st amendment rights...Let's get'em for pot...they all seem to use pot...here's a few other things they like make it illegal and arrest them...problem solved

 

Nixon...ugh

 

They need to get some freakin' perspective !!!! unjust and bogus law...good reasons to legalize

 

JUST DO IT !!!

[1337Gr33n]

used up all my po rep points for the day on this one pb. please keep us all posted on this case.

Yeah, PB got 3 points outta me in this thread alone today!