this post was submitted on
664 points (84% like it)
809 up votes 145 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

663
664

Medical Marijuana appeal finally going to federal court. For the first time since 1994, the Federal government will have to defend it's draconian policies before a federal court. Huge coup! (americansforsafeaccess.org)

submitted ago by freeseasy

all 46 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]CheckYourTotem 23 points24 points ago

The reason the government hasn't taken a serious look at Cannabis rescheduling is because they know it's not a harmful drug! They don't want to admit they are wrong. How is it that more than 50% of Americans are for the legalization of marijuana yet it hasn't happened yet? Total BS!! Legalize baby!

I'll smoke either way. But it would be nice to not have to hide it so much.

[–]RiseAM 11 points12 points ago

more than 50% of Americans are for the legalization of marijuana yet it hasn't happened yet?

Didn't that only happen last year? Things don't move that fast in government, and for good reason.

[–]powercow 1 point2 points ago

we are also a republic so the majority opinion is just simple fodder for discussion. A majority for a while thought ID should be taught in the science class room as well.

and while 50% might not care if it is legalized, I dont think you can claim that it is an important issue for 50% of the people. This is pretty important as candidates have to feel like they might lose an election or at least lose support if they are not publicly pro legalization. They have to feel like it is a topic they have to bring up and a topic they can attack their opponent on.

I suggest the 50% more displays public apathy over marijuana legalization than public support, still we have come a long way because the sheeple used to be opposed rather than apathetic not that long ago.

[–]RiseAM 2 points3 points ago

I think that's probably right. My mom, for instance, squarely falls in that category. I had this exact discussion with her the other night, and she said, "I dunno, I guess I don't really care much either way, because I wouldn't really smoke it either way." She barely drinks either, just for the record. So it's not an opposition to the drug itself, just she doesn't like the feeling of any mind altering substance. I actually don't smoke much either (once, twice a year?), I just happen to strongly feel it should be legal.

[–]lamerx 1 point2 points ago* 

That is not it, or its not all of it. The real reason is this. a high percentage of arrests for cannabis are non violent and turn quite a profit in terms of house,car,cash seizures.
Second to that, the plant itself is a threat to a lot of buisnesses. It is the most versitle plant on the face of the planet. The plant can grow from nothing to over 9 foot in just a few months. It can be used as a safe form of pain relief. The seeds from this magnificent plant have lots of protean and can be used as a food source. There was a time when cannabis was used as a form of currency and you could pay your bills with and buy food with it. The plant creates an excess. Thats the real reason it remains illegal,

[–]bomber991 1 point2 points ago

The government admits they're wrong all the time. The reason it isn't legalized today is because it's been lumped in with every other illicit substance out there for years now. To the uninformed idiot, and you know that there are a very large proportion of those people, that's enough to say that MJ is just as bad as crack. As a politician, do you think they can say "And I'm for decriminalizing marijuana!" and expect to get elected? To the uninformed voters, that's the same as saying "And I'm for decriminalizing crack cocaine!".

Regardless, weed is a weird thing. So is alcohol. It's a thing you buy, you ingest it, and then your mood changes. The odd argument is always why is alcohol legal but drugs aren't. Alcohol consumption was a sociable thing before it was banned, and I guess the crime was so bad after it was banned that it was then unbanned. We didn't spend more than a day on prohibition in highschool so I don't know the details.

From what I understand with marijuana, it was banned to stop mexicans from coming here, or it was banned to eliminate competition to duponts synthetic materials. Either way, it didn't become popular until the 60s and it was banned in the 30s. I'd imagine that if marijuana was banned in the late 60s, it would have been unbanned a decade later just like with alcohol prohibition.

[–]mjpirate 1 point2 points ago

I would have to disagree with your sentiment about usage in American society. Cannabis was [widely] used as a medicine in both the US and elsewhere prior to its prohibition.

[–]powercow 0 points1 point ago

true but it was used more medically than socially back when it was made illegal. Though many smoked it. It wasnt quite like alcohol. ANd it has never been as socially popular as alcohol.

[–]bomber991 0 points1 point ago

I wasn't alive back then so I couldn't tell you how things really were. It just seems to me that beer is pretty much socially acceptable by damn near everyone except for members of MADD or victims of drunk driving or date rape victims. For marijuana to be legalized it'll need to be acceptable by a good 80% of the population, not just 50.001%.

[–]TrickyTramp 9 points10 points ago

They can't keep fighting this forever!

[–]bringtheruckuss 19 points20 points ago

Of course they can. They shouldn't, but they can.

[–]MuuaadDib 3 points4 points ago

No they can't as much as Rome could keep their empire running. They will eventually be forced not by the will of the people, but by the sheer costs to abandon this useless war on families.

[–]powercorruption 16 points17 points ago

There's more money in keeping prohibition, than there isn't. If cannabis were legalized, prison systems would be empty, cops and prison guards would be let go, judges wouldn't have as many cases to rule. We'd have to create more jobs...which would be easy as industrial hemp brings about soooo many great uses, it would redefine the paper, clothing, housing, and oil industries. Sadly we don't live in a progressive society, we live in a greedy one.

[–]pursatrat 2 points3 points ago

It is hard to come to any other conclusion.

[–]MuuaadDib 4 points5 points ago

And I have a cancer sure....how many companies would fight me and my cure to keep the disease alive to continue to make money? I am serious, people are that fucked up, don't EVER think you set the bar too low they will slither under or fucking burrow under. They have the keys, they are not going to share the money with anyone else until all the money is gone, and they will do that until there isn't enough money to pay their hired guns and prisons to keep people from competing with them. It doesn't matter how logical or humanitarian something it - greed will crush all of that is the downfall of humans and what is genetically wrong with us all problems come from greed.

[–]powercorruption 0 points1 point ago

ah of course, how did I forget!? Pharma is a giant that doesn't want to be threatened.

[–]Skyler0 1 point2 points ago

Exactly why you forgot. They put something in the water...

[–]CSSFerret 2 points3 points ago

Make them work the hemp fields with the loggers.

[–]penguinv 1 point2 points ago

What I keep noticing is that our "checks and balances" have failed to address and balance "big money".

The policies, (laws in action), act to keep dying industry afloat. Examples about and I give you the homework of thinking about it to identify them.

Specifically here "The Prison Industry" stands to lose up to half their population if marijuana (and other drug) crimes were pardoned and they were not replenishing their profit-making populations.

Look at the growth of the prison industry. Look at the corruption and brutality, racism and hatred in those who work in this industry. I am from the USA and it's our shame.

[–]fuckcancer 1 point2 points ago

All those people are paid by the taxpayers. Letting them go would SAVE money.

[–]powercorruption 1 point2 points ago

...yeah. Until your tax dollars are used for their wellfare and unemployment.

[–]fuckcancer 2 points3 points ago* 

Even if they all got welfare and unemployment it would still cost us less. Wellfare and unemployment rarely exceeds 1000 a month.

That's just counting paychecks, and not even cars and other equipment needed for the jobs.

[–]TheLizardKing89 1 point2 points ago

Still cheaper than spending $40k a year keeping them locked up.

[–]atdanetcafe4gotmypw 0 points1 point ago

If cannabis were legalized, prison systems would be empty, cops and prison guards would be let go, judges wouldn't have as many cases to rule.

I don't believe this to be true. There are countless robberies, assaults, and murders in America that go unsolved every day. Take enforcement of marijuana prohibition away from law enforcement and they can redirect their focus toward all of these much more dangerous crimes going on.

Nobody's going to lose their jobs, although it's possible their jobs might become more stressful; I imagine going after a low lever pot dealer is easier than a violent criminal.

[–]rocknameded 0 points1 point ago

The irony of it all is that they fight you with your own money. The next time you get a paycheck, take a look at that federal tax withholding amount. Contrary to popular belief that is your money and they use it to fight you constantly.

[–]powercow 2 points3 points ago

yeah but even if you win this, they will take it off the Scheduling and still ban it for medical use.

In 2001 the supreme court said

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."

and in 2005 they said

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority

I really dont see much changing even if it is reScheduled

last the part of schedule I that is important is

have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

They dont really define or say who gets to define "accepted medical use". I can not see why the government can not define "accepted medical use" as meaning "legal to use medically". I dont see anywhere, where it says any medical group or group of doctors can say it has accepted medical use.

Good luck as always, but I dont see you havent much of a chance going this route with this court system and previous ruling.

edit

source for the first 2 quotes

source for the last

and i read through the various laws, admittedly amateurly to form my opinion

[–]quikjl 5 points6 points ago

you don't seem familiar with how drug policy works , but I am. here goes-

the sentencing guidelines in ALL courts for drugs are based on what schedule that drug is. Schedule 1 is no medical value, which is why the supreme court is able to claim there is no basis for medicine to mmj. the harshest sentencing guidelines are for sched. 1.

meth derivatives are schedule II, so according to the us federal govt, marijuana is a bigger danger than meth.

we need to , obviously, change that. it's pretty retarded as far as a national policy goes, unless you're a bible thumping hillbilly who doesn't know science from a stick.

[–]penguinv 0 points1 point ago

And who is patenting it? (guess)

No one else could because it would be illegal for them to have it to patent it.

Though IMHO it's wrong to patent anything found in nature. Really deeply morally wrong.

But then we say we own land. Maybe this is just an extension of that.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Fennwah 1 point2 points ago

Until all THC is artificially grown by Monsanto for the use of Bayer to make synthetic painkillers distributed by McKesson that costs $120 a bottle by the time it reaches your CVS.

Meanwhile actual marijuana is still banned and its users overloading our prison system.

[–]DrTeeny 2 points3 points ago

As a non-American, seeing that some Senate/Congress meetings are televised, will this one be as well? Do Federal Court cases get public coverage?

[–]geneticdrifter 0 points1 point ago

some parts can be televised, but typically aren't.

[–]ZxEfR 1 point2 points ago

The only reason people want prohibition is control. Most people want any little thing they can institute to control other people they don't like...which for most people is most people. Humans love to control other humans. Plain and simple. It's not money, ignorance, stupidity nor the myriad of other things that people tell themselves it is.

Any little law that can be used to control someone else for the short term for the long term whatever that law might be it's about control. Once you get someone in the system for crimes, made up or otherwise, then that person officially and fully belongs to those that support and enforce that law...just the way they like. This desire to control others will never go away and the only thing that stops it (of course only temporarily) is when those being controlled win a bloody revolt.

[–]TomasNYC 0 points1 point ago

Really? In the free country they made plant illegal? Somebody must make shit tons of money.

[–]DrTeeny 1 point2 points ago

Yep, they're called private prisions. If I'm not wrong, in the USA, prisioners are often used for private/public workings, and get paid a little over nothing, while the ones that offer the work (private/public prisions) get paid a shitload of money. Basically, slave labour revamped.

[–]mjtribute 1 point2 points ago

In case anyone is interested in the schedule for this case:

  • PETITIONER Brief due 01/23/2012 (it was delayed to the 26th).
  • INTERVENOR for PETITIONER Brief due 02/07/2012.
  • RESPONDENT Brief due on 03/08/2012.
  • PETITIONER Reply Brief due 03/22/2012.
  • INTERVENOR for PETITIONER Reply Brief due 03/22/2012.
  • Deferred Appendix due 03/29/2012. Final Briefs due 04/12/2012.

This will be an interesting case to watch, for sure. For updates, log in to pacer here and look up case 11-1265.

[–]brygphilomena 0 points1 point ago

What is it that the court can actually do? The article said they want them to rule that there be a evenhanded hearing? Can a federal supreme court case even do line item vetos like this? Or would they have to strike down the entire CSA?

[–]mipbar 0 points1 point ago

http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/in-the-shadows/the-18-most-suppressed-inventions-ever/gallery.html?curPhoto=5

[–]BiggestBigTuna 0 points1 point ago

The government doesn't want marijuana to be legal because it will lead to a mass awakening. For the evolution of mankind, I hope this passes

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 10291 on app-133 running 41686ac.