Quick Hits (page 2)
Court Rejects Pot Ban
By: Associated Press
Anchorage -- The Alaska Court of Appeals has rejected a request by the state to reconsider a decision allowing adults to possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use.
In its ruling, the court denied Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes' petition for a rehearing in the case of David Noy, a North Pole man who was arrested in 2001 after he was found with marijuana in his home.
Renkes said the next step is to ask the Alaska Supreme Court take up the case.
In August, the appeals court reversed Noy's conviction and ruled that Alaskans have the right to possess less than four ounces of marijuana in their homes for personal use.
The court based its ruling on the broad right to privacy in Alaska's Constitution, as interpreted in the 1975 landmark Alaska Supreme Court case of Ravin vs. State.
The Ravin decision had led to the legalization of at-home use of small amounts of marijuana for several years, giving Alaska the most liberal pot laws in the nation.
That ended in 1990 when Alaska voters passed an initiative to criminalize the possession of all pot.
But the ruling in the Noy case interpreted the Ravin decision as meaning that Alaska's constitutional right to privacy is so strong that the voters -- and the Legislature -- are restricted from just deciding that pot should be illegal in the home.
"The state contends that this view of Ravin is fundamentally flawed and that Ravin did not announce a constitutional restriction on the government's lawmaking power ... we are convinced that the state's interpretation of Ravin is wrong," the state appeals court said in its ruling on the Noy marijuana case.
Dean Guaneli, the chief assistant attorney general, responded that the appeals court misunderstood arguments made by the state.
Despite what appeared to give all indications of a negative ruling for the state, the attorney general's office issued a press release Friday classifying the decision as at least a partial victory.
While the decision denied a rehearing, the release states, it did give the state permission to challenge the Ravin decision.
Guaneli said the office based this interpretation of the decision on the last sentence, which reads "the state remains free in the future to challenge the continuing vitality of Ravin."
William Satterberg, the Fairbanks lawyer who is opposing the attorney general in the Noy case, said the Friday appeals court ruling gave the state no power to challenge the Ravin decision that it didn't already have.
But Guaneli said the state was worried that the appeals courts ruling on the Noy case was couched in terms so ironclad that the state might be unable to go back and attack the Ravin decision.
The ultimate goal, Guaneli said, is for the state to be able to prove to a court that marijuana is stronger and is causing more harm in Alaska than back when the 1975 Ravin decision came out. Then the state might be able to show it has a strong enough interest in making it illegal to override the constitutional questions.
Click here for more Quick Hits.
Growin' Our Own (page 2)
"Why is Rush Limbaugh the only person treated like this in America?"
By: Elmore Stone
The title of this story is a quote from ditto-doper's attorney Roy Black. Yeah, and I think it is a very valid question. To put it another way 'why is Rush Limbaugh not in jail awaiting trail on federal and state illegal drug charges'?
Quoting Limbaugh's statement which Black prepared: " 'What these records show is that Mr. Limbaugh suffered extreme pain and had legitimate reasons for taking pain medication,' Limbaugh read. 'Unfortunately, because of Mr. Limbaugh's prominence and well-known political opinions, he is being subjected to an invasion of privacy no citizen of this republic should endure.' "
Gee, ya suppose? Let us see, shall we? Limbaugh purportedly suffers from "extreme pain and had legitimate reasons for taking pain medication." Ok, I can accept that. But what about the person with cancer who smokes pot as a medical marijuana patient to relieve pain? Doesn't that person have the same right as Limbaugh? Or what about the AIDS patient who uses pot medically? Doesn't he have the right to take pain medications such as pot as well? Or is it 'Ok' for ditto-doper but not for anybody else.
Invasion of privacy? At the very least ditto-doper is free. Ditto-doper can come and go, in his Mercedes, to his 24 million dollar house in West Palm Beach Florida as he pleases. How many seriously ill medical marijuana patients are currently (a) incarcerated serving their prison sentence, (b) incarcerated while awaiting trial (c) on bail awaiting trial or (d) dead because their medical marijuana was taken from them while serving their sentence? Quite a few as you all well know.
I am not saying that invading ditto-doper's privacy is right. I am not saying that at all. But, and I'll say it again, why hasn't Limbaugh been treated like other purported illegal drug users? Why is the chief ditto-doper walking around free as a bird -- instead of languishing in a cell awaiting trial like a jail bird? Why is Limbaugh receiving 'special' treatment for allegedly committing criminal acts of a felonious nature, and more than one of them to boot?
I'll tell you why: (a) money and lots of it, (b) political connections and lots of them and (c) the most popular conservative talk radio show in the country. A couple of other things, Limbaugh is well groomed, kind of like Fido, and wears a suit and tie. But, of course, so did Al Capone.
Ditto-doper espouses, right or wrong, what the current leadership in the House, Senate, White House, assorted cabinet officers and their underlings believe in. As such, they really want no part of this fiasco.
Has John Asscroft, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Just-Us said anything or held a 'big' press conference? Nope. Has the blithering idiot who is now in charge of the DEA held a press conference to announce the arrest of ditto-doper? No. Has the U.S. Attorney for that area of Flori-duh held a press conference announcing the prosecution of Limbaugh to the fullest extent of the law? Not in your wildest dreams.
In fact this whole ditto-doper ala oxycontin caper is a real bad dream. Indeed it is a nightmare. A nightmare for politicians, bureaucrats, cabinet officers, the whole shittery. Especially those who say they are tough on crime. Their hero has possibly committed various crimes. Oh no Mr. Bill, what do we do! Pretend it never happened. Stick our collective heads in the sand and maybe people will forget it ever happened. They really just want it to go away. Well guess what? It isn't going away. And now somebody has to do their job, or at least pretend that they are doing their job, all the while hoping that if the purported investigation takes long enough the whole thing will just blow over and disappear.
Meanwhile, here is another quote from ditto-doper's attorney, Roy Black: "He became addicted to a prescription drug during legitimate medical treatment." I, for one, just cannot understand how anybody could become addicted to a drug which is based on synthetic morphine. Duh. Also the amount of oxycontin ditto-doper was taking should in no way have addicted him to the drug. He was only taking, according to various reports, upwards of 92 pills a day. What kind of a wimp is Limbaugh anyhow?
Seriously though, have you ever gone Googling for the phrase "oxycontin side effects" without the quotes. Try it and then read all the nasty little things oxycontin does to your body. Things like respiratory depression, apnea, respiratory arrest, and (to a lesser degree) circulatory depression, hypotension, or shock (read OD.). Ain't that just loverly? Respiratory arrest means you stop breathing. Or, to be blunt and politically incorrect, you are fucking dead. Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'pharmaceutical companies are making a killing on oxycontin'. If nothing else, the pharmaceutical companies are going to get your money because you are hooked. How disgusting ... legal pushers.
Here are a few more handy dandy side effects of oxycontin: abnormal gait, agitation, amnesia, depersonalization, anorexia, depression, emotional lability, hallucination, hyperkinesia, hypesthesia, hypotonia, malaise, paresthesia, seizures, speech disorder, stupor, tinnitus, tremor, vertigo, withdrawal syndrome with or without seizures and can be thought altering.
Did you notice anything entertaining? Other than the fact that all those side effects are really bad for you. How about "thought altering?" But the better one without a doubt is "hallucination." To some people, not all, oxycontin is a hallucinogen. Hell, if you want to trip orange sunshine is far better, far cheaper and doesn't do all those evil things to your body that oxycontin does. Maybe that is why ditto-doper is the way he is, he is tripping on oxycontin.
Now, on the other hand, pot, be it used for medical purposes or just for the hell of it, causes a person to (a) mellow out, (b) become hungry, no anorexia here, thank you very much, (c) can be used to reduce severe levels of pain, (d) can be used to treat open sores and wounds, (e) is natural, no nasty chemical side effects and (f) no chemical drug interactions. Bear in mind this list is not all inclusive.
More importantly, there are two things weed cannot do. A person can not OD and, Rush I truly hope you are reading this and on the off chance you are, A -- PERSON -- CAN -- NOT -- BECOME -- ADDICTED -- TO -- MARIJUANA. And just to clarify things, let us put a time frame on that, EVER. There you go ditto-doper, I even used big letters just for you.
There are doctors in several states who, though they cannot legally prescribe marijuana, they can and do, however, legally recommend marijuana to a patient "during legitimate medical treatment." Indeed, marijuana is part of the legitimate medical treatment. Yet these doctors come under scrutiny by both state and federal agencies for performing their medical job. Their patients live in fear. Fear of constant arrest for the most heinous of crimes -- trying to live or to be free of pain. All because of one word ... marijuana. All because of mighty mouths such as Rush Limbaugh spouting lies and what they would do if they were in charge or what should be done by those currently in charge to drug users. Funny thing though, Limbaugh himself is an admitted drug addict. How do you like them apples Asscroft?
The big question though is now what? Seeing ditto-doper in jail or prison would initially be funny and poetic justice. But that does not solve the problem. The problem, which Limbaugh is the poster boy for though he doesn't know it, is the dual standard of justice. A person who is using pot medically for a serious illness is considered by some a defacto criminal and should be burned at the stake. Yet at the same time a person of "prominence" can openly admit to drug addiction and all of a sudden the 'oh, the poor dear I'll pray for him' syndrome comes on hot and heavy. We, as individuals, as a people, as a country, cannot have it both ways. What is fair and just for one should be fair and just for all. Equal application of the law you know.
So, how do we solve this dual standard of justice? Believe it or not I think old Rush himself could do a lot to solve it. He could get on his radio show and start flapping his gums about how unjust drug laws actually are. He also needs to apologize to all those who have used or currently use drugs for the living hell he has put them through. Lastly, he could call upon his army of ditto-heads, politicians, bureaucrats and all those who hold him, for whatever reason, in awe to put pressure on the congress and the various state legislatures to repeal the existing drug laws.
Sound far-fetched? It probably is. But do you have a better idea? Ditto-doper has a huge listening audience. He captures the minds of a lot of people. Why not put all those people to good use for a change?
Well Rush, the ball is now squarely in your court. What are you going to do? More importantly what are you going to say?
Click here for more Growin' Our Own.
Pipeline (page 2)
Medical pot Wins a Legal Victory U.S. Appeals Court Ruling is Likely to Face a Challenge
By: Bob Egelko (SF Chronicle)
Medical marijuana advocates scored a potential legal breakthrough Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled that two Northern California women could use locally grown pot without risking federal prosecution.
The federal ban on marijuana is probably unconstitutional as applied to individuals who obtain the drug without buying it, get it within their state's borders and use it for medical purposes on their doctors' advice and in compliance with state law, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco -- the first court ever to issue such a ruling.
The 2-1 decision could be short-lived, however. The appeals court has regularly seen its precedent-setting decisions, particularly those by liberal panels, overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2001, the high court overruled a Ninth Circuit decision that would have allowed marijuana cooperatives to supply the drug to patients who could not be treated by legal substances.
The 2001 ruling expressly left some marijuana-related issues unresolved, including the question addressed Tuesday: whether Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce applies to locally grown medical marijuana.
Attorney Robert Raich, whose daughter, Angel of Oakland, is one of the two plaintiffs in the case, said he thought the ruling stood a strong chance of withstanding a likely appeal by the Bush administration's Justice Department.
"It's really based on the Supreme Court's own precedents,'' he said, citing decisions from the past decade that have limited Congress' power to regulate local, noncommercial activities, such as gun possession near schools.
The ruling left a dent in federal drug laws that could get deeper in the near future. Another panel of the court is considering appeals by two medical marijuana distributors -- a collective in Santa Cruz and a buyers' cooperative in Oakland -- that claim a constitutional right to supply pot produced within California.
Tuesday's ruling made it clear, however, that the court was approving only the personal medical use of marijuana that the women grew themselves or had someone grow for them. "This class of activities does not involve sale, exchange or distribution'' and thus is unlikely to affect interstate commerce, said Judge Harry Pregerson.
Besides California, the ruling affects six other states in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction that also have medical marijuana laws: Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii.
From the start, the case has been the medical marijuana movement's strongest hope of creating some legal breathing space for California's 1996 initiative, Proposition 215, which allows medical use of pot with a doctor's recommendation.
The federal government, under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, has relied on the conflicting federal law to shut down California pot dispensaries, raid medical marijuana growers and, in the past few years, prosecute suppliers. With few exceptions, federal courts have backed the government.
In one such raid, in August 2002, federal agents seized and destroyed six marijuana plants grown by Diane Monson of Oroville (Butte County), who uses the drug to relieve severe chronic back pain and muscle spasms.
Monson is a plaintiff in the case along with Angel Raich, who has used marijuana every two waking hours for five years to combat pain and the side effects of other therapies for a brain tumor, wasting syndrome, a seizure disorder and other conditions. Raich's doctor said that other medications had been useless or harmful and that Raich might die without marijuana.
Neither woman has been prosecuted. Their lawsuit, filed in October 2002, asks for an injunction that would allow them to keep using marijuana without prosecution. U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins of San Francisco denied the injunction in March, saying he was doing so reluctantly but under compulsion of rulings allowing federal prosecution of users of locally produced drugs.
But the appeals court said Tuesday that the previous rulings involved recreational or other nonmedical use of drugs that could easily be dealt in interstate commerce. Marijuana that is grown locally and obtained by a patient for medical purposes falls into a different category, the court said.
"The intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking,'' Pregerson, joined by Judge Richard Paez, said in the majority opinion.
"The medical marijuana at issue in this case is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce,'' Pregerson said.
In dissent, C. Arlen Beam, a visiting judge from the federal appeals court in St. Louis, said marijuana was a commercial product under the broad definition used by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.
"The cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes is commercial in nature,'' Beam said. He said Raich and Monson were growing and using "a fungible crop which could be sold in the marketplace."
On the web Raich v. Ashcroft, 03-15481 (pdf file).
Click here for more Pipeline.
Dakota Joseph Arts