Libertarian Party Condemns SCOTUS Medical Marijuana Decision

(The following is a press release from the Libertarian Party at www.lp.org):
 
Libertarian Party Condemns the Supreme Court Decision Against the use of Medical Marijuana


 

(Washington, D.C.) In a 6-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the federal government will continue to arrest and prosecute sick and terminally ill Americans who use marijuana for medical purposes.   The decision supersedes state laws and the votes of citizens that allow the medical use of marijuana.

While the people of California and other states voted for the right of sick and dying patients to use marijuana as a medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s ruling permits the federal government to ignore the recorded decisions of an electorate.  

Currently, ten states allow residents to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes.  The court ruling, which was pushed forward by the Bush administration, not only lacks compassion for the sick but is also a clear encroachment upon states’ rights.

Libertarian Party Executive Director Joe Seehusen stated, “This ruling is not only a blow to the elderly, sick and terminally ill, but also represents the further decline of states’ rights.”  Mr. Seehusen continued, “It is important that the American public does not minimize this issue by believing that it only affects ‘pot smokers’ as it is a much deeper debate involving the intrusion of the federal government upon the states, the power of the prescription drug lobby, and the growing limits on individual freedom.” 

The Libertarian Party is a long-standing advocate for individual liberty and believes that Americans should be responsible for their own actions and, in this case, be able to use alternative forms of medication outside of the realm of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.

Working with like-minded groups, the Libertarian Party will help craft federal legislation that will assist individuals needing medical marijuana to pursue treatment methods without fear of arrest and prosecution by the federal government.

9,482 views 37 replies
Reply #1 Top
Americans should be responsible for their own actions and, in this case, be able to use alternative forms of medication outside of the realm of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical lobby.


I agree. Did you see the show on the History Channel Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way?
Reply #2 Top
No, I don't have the History Channel, sadly enough (I'm longing for the day when cable companies realize they can make more money by selling channels a la carte).
Reply #3 Top
Further decline of states rights.. True. However, unless the Supreme Court is willing to tell the FDA it no longer has the authority to regulate and classify meds, it was the right ruling.

The big questions now are, will local, state and federal law enforcement agencies face the press onslaught that is sure to come with any arrest and prosecution of the elderly, sick and terminally ill. This part remains to be seen.

It is consistant, and politically profitable for the LP to take on this issue though. There has been too much emphasis from the LP on complete legalization. For PR purposes, they need to be seen as taking stands that voters can join in on.
Reply #4 Top
Para,

I have long held with my stance that the LP needs to lead with the issues it can win. That doesn't mean abandon their more controversial issues, just don't LEAD with them.

Examples of issues that can be won: CPS overreach (obviously my pet issue), medical marijuana, lower taxes (and, in some areas, smaller government).

Examples of issues that are not as readily winnable: Complete drug legalization (though, for the record, I stand firmly on the LP's side on this issue), an end to indecency laws (we had a lengthy debate about this one on an LP message board that I won't detail here), elimination of welfare programs.

ALL of the LP's positions have merit, even the most controversial proposals. But to win over public opinion on the more controversial issues, we must have proven success in the "winnable" areas first.
Reply #5 Top
I don't buy it. There are medications made with derivitives of pot. There are many, many medications that are better at reducing pain and suffering than pot. The idea that these people's only choice is to roll a fatty is silly, imho.

The terminally ill and suffering need medical treatment, not a dealer with a dime bag. If their only hope was overturning our stance on drugs, then perhaps they'd have a point. I'd prefer to sock people in the teeth instead of getting along with them sometimes. My preferences take a back seat to society's.

Reply #6 Top

Baker,

I'm gonna toot the "states' rights" horn with this one. I believe there are medical benefits to marijuana, and I'm not alone in my thinking. But most importantly, this is an issue that I feel should be left to the states to decide, not the fed.

Reply #7 Top
The "State's Rights" argument isn't going to work on this one. The people want the government to regulate medicine and there's no way each state can set up its own FDA.

Also, if Marijuana is going to be legalized, the next thing that will happen is the lawsuits against the government because of the connections smoking it will have with lung cancer. Sorry, but no matter how legal it might become, burning carbon based leafs is still going to produce carcinigens... and taking a toke and holding the smoke is still going to bring on the ugly of cancer.
Reply #8 Top

Also, if Marijuana is going to be legalized, the next thing that will happen is the lawsuits against the government because of the connections smoking it will have with lung cancer.

Para,

You don't HAVE to SMOKE marijuana to receive the medical benefits. Ingestion is FAR preferable, in my opinion.

Reply #9 Top
Sorry, Gid, but Para's right. The FDA has authority to oversee these kinds of medical treatments. These laws try to subvert that.

I think you'd offer a more focused front if you tried to assert the FDA itself was was functioning in opposition to state's rights. As it stands, your party's stance seems to be a workaround.
Reply #10 Top

I think you'd offer a more focused front if you tried to assert the FDA itself was was functioning in opposition to state's rights. As it stands, your party's stance seems to be a workaround.

Frankly, MY position is just that. I don't know if you remember the article, but the FDA was on my "short list" of federal agencies I would like to see disbanded.

I don't see the party's stance as a workaround, though. See it that way if you will, but I think there's a seriously dangerous precedent set by this particular decision.

In defense of the Supreme Court, I WILL say they did in their decision urge the FDA to change its stance regarding medical marijuana. That, at least, is a first.

Reply #12 Top
Gid: How is it not a workaround. Your party stands on the idea that it should be a state's right to decide about this medication. The FDA pre-empts that right. How can the Libertarian party not make this about the FDA?

It would be like me saying that I don't have a problem with the IRS, but it is the state's rights to reject the IRS's authority, wouldn't it? If the Libertarian party has a problem with the FDA, shouldn't they focus on the FDA?

Sorry, but to me it sounds like they are making a political decision, accepting the FDA's presence because it is too big of a fight. Isn't that what people go to the Libertarian party to avoid?
Reply #13 Top
P.S. I hope you don't see this as pimping my blog, but I was really interested in seeing your opinion of my "My Enemy's Enemy Sucks Just as Much." blog. I think this is a good example of what I was trying to say.
Reply #14 Top

#5 by BakerStreet
Saturday, June 11, 2005





I don't buy it. There are medications made with derivatives of pot. There are many, many medications that are better at reducing pain and suffering than pot. The idea that these people's only choice is to roll a fatty is silly, imho.
The terminally ill and suffering need medical treatment, not a dealer with a dime bag. If their only hope was overturning our stance on drugs, then perhaps they'd have a point. I'd prefer to sock people in the teeth instead of getting along with them sometimes. My preferences take a back seat to society's.




Baker, your wrong. The reason there are no medications is because the feds have outlawed the same. The active ingredient is THC which is the same category as pot itself. So the very use of THC to make a derivatives is illegal. The only meds better at reducing pain are heavy narcotics. I don't know about you but I'd rather use something that is a proven non-addictive drug over one that's almost guaranteed addictive.
Reply #15 Top

#7 by ParaTed2k
Saturday, June 11, 2005





The "State's Rights" argument isn't going to work on this one. The people want the government to regulate medicine and there's no way each state can set up its own FDA.

Also, if Marijuana is going to be legalized, the next thing that will happen is the lawsuits against the government because of the connections smoking it will have with lung cancer. Sorry, but no matter how legal it might become, burning carbon based leafs is still going to produce carcinigens... and taking a toke and holding the smoke is still going to bring on the ugly of cancer.


Sorry Ted but your also wrong. The "carcinogen" in tobacco smoke is nicotine which is NOT present in pot. Sorry guys but your not gonna win this one with me. As an MS sufferer I would greatly benefit from "medical" legalization of pot. It is a BIG help with spasticity of muscles which is a part of MS.
Reply #16 Top
The "carcinogen" in tobacco smoke is nicotine which is NOT present in pot.


Sorry, wrong. There are more than 50 carcinogens present in tobacco smoke, as well as marijuana smoke. Nicotine is the actively addictive component in tobacco, not the primary carcinogen.

Tobacco and marijuana smoke contain approximately the same levels of carcinogens.
Reply #17 Top
There are more than 50 carcinogens present in tobacco smoke, as well as marijuana smoke. Nicotine is the actively addictive component in tobacco, not the primary carcinogen.


Correct. As is THC for Marijuana.

As far as I know in a medical standpoint, THC's molecular structure can be modified to a nonaddictive form. I believe this was called Marinol at one time, but was either A) banned, or B) just too expensive to make and use.

I don't know about you but I'd rather use something that is a proven non-addictive drug over one that's almost guaranteed addictive.


Wrong. While I'm not denying that Marijuana is addictive, heavy pain-killers are highly addictive as well (Percocet, Oxycoten, Morphine, and Tylenol 3 with Codeine are all perscription drugs with high abuse rates)

Just as a side note, most medical marijuana is used for terminally ill patients and/or fatal cancer patients. Another use for medical marijuana ( I think) is use as a stomach settler for people on chemotherapy. According to some of my research, some patients are unable to stomach anything after chemo, and thus become even weaker than normal. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

As for medical my position on medical marijuana... I don't have one. As a soon-to-be student of pharmacology, I am interested in the effects of THC, and whether or not it could be modified cheaply and efficiently to produce nonaddictive medicines.

Another sidenote: It is well known that the FDA has a priority line where tests products with a lot of financial backing and lobbying. It's a little easier getting things done when there is money on the line (in one form or the other).

Peace,

Beebes
Reply #18 Top
"Baker, your wrong. The reason there are no medications is because the feds have outlawed the same."


Really? There's some awfully misleading information on the DEA's website, then:

- Medical marijuana already exists. It's called Marinol.

- A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, is widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

- Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke-Marinol has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation's watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. Since the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, any drug that is marketed in the United States must undergo rigorous scientific testing. The approval process mandated by this act ensures that claims of safety and therapeutic value are supported by clinical evidence and keeps unsafe, ineffective and dangerous drugs off the market.


Here's the link. What people haven't really been able to tell me is what pot is so effective at that other drugs aren't. I've been treated for pain, I have been given appetite stimulating hormones.

There have been studies that stated that they were unable to prove real benefits from medicinal pot. Can anyone point out where the benefits are shown to be a proven fact?
Reply #19 Top
From the first link I provided

People undergoing cancer chemotherapy have found smoked marijuana to be an effective anti-nauseant - often more effective than available pharmaceutical medications. Indeed, 44 % of oncologists responding to a questionnaire said they had recommended marijuana to their cancer patients; others said they would recommend it if it were legal.
Marijuana is also smoked by thousands of AIDS patients to treat the nausea and vomiting associated with both the disease and AZT drug therapy. Because it stimulates appetite, marijuana also counters HIV-related "wasting," allowing AIDS patients to gain weight and prolong their lives.

In 1986, a synthetic delta-9-THC capsule (Marinol) was marketed in the United States and labeled for use as an anti-emetic. Despite some utility, this product has serious drawbacks' including its cost. For example, a patient taking three five-milligram capsules a day would spend over $5,000 to use Marinol for one year. In comparison to the natural, smokeable product Marinol also has some pharmacological shortcomings.
Reply #20 Top
"Indeed, 44 % of oncologists responding to a questionnaire said they had recommended marijuana to their cancer patients"


44% sounds big until you look at the sample:

" The survey was mailed to about one-third (N = 2430) of all U.S.-based ASCO members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1035). More than 44% of the respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient.-Link"


That would make it 44%, of the 43% that responded, of the 33% percent they asked. My math comes out to 455. Studies often use "who responded" to make their figures look big...
Reply #21 Top

Here's the link. What people haven't really been able to tell me is what pot is so effective at that other drugs aren't. I've been treated for pain, I have been given appetite stimulating hormones.


Go read the end of reply #15. I'm already on baclofin for spasms and it isn't working. There is nothing else except for narcotics that will work. I cadged a joint from my brother and what do ya know it stopped the spasms dead in their tracks.
Reply #22 Top
Did your doctor give you the impression that Marinol was illegal? Maybe you ought to talk to him about it?

I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, please don't take offense. I just think that when you see newsclips of people lined up around the block to buy pot at these medicinal pot places, I have to wonder how many terminally ill people there are. Honestly, I have no problem if they made pot, even smoked pot, available by prescription.

The way it has been done by these "outlets" that open as test cases, though, can't be taken seriously.

Reply #23 Top

#17 by Death_By_Beebles
Saturday, June 11, 2005





There are more than 50 carcinogens present in tobacco smoke, as well as marijuana smoke. Nicotine is the actively addictive component in tobacco, not the primary carcinogen.


Correct. As is THC for Marijuana.

As far as I know in a medical standpoint, THC's molecular structure can be modified to a nonaddictive form. I believe this was called Marinol at one time, but was either A) banned, or B) just too expensive to make and use.

I don't know about you but I'd rather use something that is a proven non-addictive drug over one that's almost guaranteed addictive.


Wrong. While I'm not denying that Marijuana is addictive,


There is no emperical evidence of this. At best there is a "tentative" link to a possible psychological addiction.
Reply #24 Top

Did your doctor give you the impression that Marinol was illegal? Maybe you ought to talk to him about it?
I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, please don't take offense. I just think that when you see newsclips of people lined up around the block to buy pot at these medicinal pot places, I have to wonder how many terminally ill people there are. Honestly, I have no problem if they made pot, even smoked pot, available by prescription.

The way it has been done by these "outlets" that open as test cases, though, can't be taken seriously.


Yes as a matter of fact he did. Now do not get me wrong here. I do NOT want it legalized across the board (which is something my brother and I fight about alot!). "Just" for medicinal purposes ONLY! Here's a point to ponder....If there is NO medicinal value to pot then why did they come up with marinol?
Reply #25 Top
Bakerstreet is a pimp.... a blog pimp.