Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Libertarian Party Condemns SCOTUS Medical Marijuana Decision

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.

9,483 views 37 replies
Reply #26 Top
The idea that these people's only choice is to roll a fatty is silly, imho.


Of course it's not their only choice, B Street, but it should be one of their options. There is no perfect solution to the problem of drug use and abuse, but a system that creates a vacuum filled by Crips & Bloods and facilitates the social destruction of whole communities seems to me like a poor solution at best.

Our collective (hypocritical) schizophrenia about pot is what is silly - we hardly bat an eye as thousands of people die (along with thousands of innocent victims) every year as a direct consequence of the use of (legal) alcohol, and get all righteous when someone wants to chill out with a joint, whether for their glaucoma or simple enjoyment. And tobacco does far more harm to individuals than pot (ever see anyone smoke "2 packs" of weed a day?). Pot should be legal, taxed like cigarettes & alcohol, and be done with it. It should be considered by the legal system as an intoxicant like alcohol and be subject to the same consequences (such as driving under the influence), though I'll grant that judging "impairment" is not as clean as with alcohol, for which reliable pharmacologic data exist to enable determination of "degrees" of impairment. That, by itself, however, is an insufficient reason to keep its use illegal. And, no, I don't use pot - I could barely stomach the Crooks cigars they made me suck on during the "smokeout" part of Hell Week.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #27 Top
I am leaving the reservation and joining the Libertarians.  This just sucks!
Reply #28 Top
"Of course it's not their only choice, B Street, but it should be one of their options. "


If by option you mean going to a pharmacist with a prescription, then sure, I can live with that. If you mean going to a skanky building, standing in line with a bunch of stoners pretending to be sick, and then giving TV crew the finger as you leave, then no, I think not.

People like Dr. Miller deserve the best treatment they can get, but the fact is this is being used as a stepping stone by activist organizations interested in legalization for everyone. I'm not going to play into it. If the FDA approves smoked MJ as a treatment, then by all means, I'm all for it.

The store-front 'clubs' they offered in certain test cases around the country were idiotic, though. If you want to have the perspective that the FDA is a bunch of fuddy-duddies that are just biased against pot, fine, but they are given the power to pick and choose, and they have decided not to approve smoking a doob at this point.
Reply #29 Top

#28 by BakerStreet
Sunday, June 12, 2005





"Of course it's not their only choice, B Street, but it should be one of their options. "


If by option you mean going to a pharmacist with a prescription, then sure, I can live with that. If you mean going to a skanky building, standing in line with a bunch of stoners pretending to be sick, and then giving TV crew the finger as you leave, then no, I think not.

People like Dr. Miller deserve the best treatment they can get, but the fact is this is being used as a stepping stone by activist organizations interested in legalization for everyone. I'm not going to play into it. If the FDA approves smoked MJ as a treatment, then by all means, I'm all for it.

The store-front 'clubs' they offered in certain test cases around the country were idiotic, though. If you want to have the perspective that the FDA is a bunch of fuddy-duddies that are just biased against pot, fine, but they are given the power to pick and choose, and they have decided not to approve smoking a doob at this point.


Problem is Baker that the FDA lumps ALL pot use in the same catagory! They make no difference between medicinal or recreational use. Their take is there is NO medicinal value to pot. And like I said before....If this is true then why approve marinol?
Reply #30 Top
Marinol is the proof against your assertion, isn't it? Obviously they haven't written off pot, since they are using a synthetic form of the active ingredient. Do you really, really think they will ever approve smoking in any form? I doubt it.

They have the right to approve or deny medicines. Perhaps the problem is at the 'study' level. Instead of fighting at the congressional and judicial level, maybe it would be wiser to push for more definitive testing that no one could refute.
Reply #31 Top
Perhaps the problem is at the 'study' level. Instead of fighting at the congressional and judicial level, maybe it would be wiser to push for more definitive testing that no one could refute.


I doubt that would do any good. The FDA or politicians would probably refute or ignore any study that said anything they don't want to hear. It's happened several times before.
Reply #32 Top
If you mean going to a skanky building, standing in line with a bunch of stoners pretending to be sick, and then giving TV crew the finger as you leave, then no, I think not.


What's wrong with giving a TV crew the finger?
Reply #33 Top
If you look at it in terms of politics, I think you'll find that the FDA does what they are told. If there were studies that showed that a big pharmecutical company could use pot in a reliable way, they'd pump millions into lobbying Congress and the FDA would heel like it always does *cough*Phen Phen*cough*.

To me, if this were this self-apparent, there'd be no way the FDA would overcome the lobbying of pharmacutical companies. Why aren't they interested?

"What's wrong with giving a TV crew the finger?"


When you are trying to prove that your "club" is a responsible distribution point for the suffering and diseased, and the people lined up around the block are unruly and look like they just came from a Bob Marley concert... well...
Reply #34 Top
When you are trying to prove that your "club" is a responsible distribution point for the suffering and diseased, and the people lined up around the block are unruly and look like they just came from a Bob Marley concert... well...



My question was meant in a half-humorous way. A lot of times TV crews and reporters are so obnoxious and intrusive, they deserve for someone to give them the finger.
Reply #35 Top


#30 by BakerStreet
Sunday, June 12, 2005





Marinol is the proof against your assertion, isn't it?



No, actually it isn't! If you go to the FDAs website you will see exactly what I'm talking about.
Reply #36 Top
i believe the court decided the case correctly despite believing marijuana is, at worst, less harmful than many other pharmaceuticals. i'm not taking any joy from it (other than the cheap thrill of seeing thomas reveal himself to be an activist judge once again ... ).

i hope this door being shut will cause another to open in congress although revising federal prohibitions involves much more than simple legislation. thanks to the unflagging and devious efforts of harry anslinger--first director of the former bureau of narcotics and dangerous drugs--to permanently impose his personal moral judgement on the entire planet.

the ultimate result of anslinger's byzantine machinations and uncurbed abuse of his office is the un's single convention on narcotic drugs. altho it's no longer so draconian as it once was and provides for amendments, should the us initiate or support relaxing the convention, we'd be seen as extremely hypocritical. noncompliance would result in our being branded as a pariah nation. good ol harry was a genius in his own sick way.
Reply #37 Top

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

Frankly, I believe there's misleading information on EVERY government website, especially that of the DEA. Like any private company, they are selling something; hyperbole and gross misstatements are a good way to do it.