What causes more harm? Pot? Or Pot Law?

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by Digit, Jul 9, 2003.


What causes more harm?

  1. Pot

    0 vote(s)
  2. Pot Law

    0 vote(s)
  1. i reccomend you click the links above each article to read the comments made on cannabisnews.com
    but you dont have to read these articles, just a few of the dozens of similar examples that crop up every week, to be able to go vote in the poll.

    Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2003 at 10:31:11 PT
    CBC News Report
    Source: CBC

    Saint John - A husband and wife who married in New Brunswick are trying to convince the U.S. government to let them live together. Terry and Debbie VanDuzee's honeymoon has been short. The couple was married in New Brunswick almost a year ago, but for most of that time they've lived in separate countries.
    That's because Terry VanDuzee is barred from entering the United States because of two convictions for marijuana possession stemming back from the late seventies.

    The computer instructor says he has received a full pardon from the Canadian government, but the American government hasn't been as forgiving. "Their statements say if you have one drug conviction they can forgive that. Which tells me personally if you have two drug convictions, no matter how long ago it was, that you are not rehabilitable."

    Terry met his wife Debbie on a Christian Internet chatline. She wanted to stay in North Carolina to be with her four older children but is in despair that her husband can't be there too. "I've thought several times I was going to lose it because you get married and you think your going to spend the rest of your life together with the one you love and then you're told by your government you can't be together with the one you love because it's hard to work on a marriage 1,240 miles apart."

    The VanDuzee's say they're not the only ones suffering, and that's why they're going to continue bombarding politicians with letters to change the U.S. drug laws.

    Source: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
    Published: July 07, 2003
    Copyright: 2003 CBC
    Contact: letters@cbc.ca
    Website: http://www.cbc.ca/

    Related Articles:

    Smoking Judge Strikes Blow for Pot Puffers

    Messy Marijuana Law Tries Courts, Police

    Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2003 at 12:37:26 PT
    Breaking News
    Source: Bay City News

    A federal judge in San Jose today indicated that he wanted to find a way to allow terminally ill patients to grow their own marijuana but did not think it would be possible under current federal law.
    U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel heard arguments by a group of plaintiffs, led by the city and county of Santa Cruz, seeking an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from enforcing federal drug laws against terminally ill patients using medical marijuana.

    "Frankly, I'm looking for a hook that's different from one I've already looked at and been forced to reject," Fogel said. "I would need something new and different other than 'judge you got it wrong last time."'

    Last December, Fogel ruled that current federal law and court precedents did not grant any exceptions to a Santa Cruz medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, from federal drug laws. A number of the plaintiffs in that case are also plaintiffs in the current case.

    Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, a member of the famed O.J. Simpson "Legal Dream Team," represents the plaintiffs in both the current case and last year's case. He said that the current case contains important legal differences that should allow Fogel to issue an injunction.

    "The judge is looking for hooks that have not been presented to the court before and we have them in this case," Uelmen said.

    One of the key "hooks," according to Uelmen, is that many of the plaintiffs in this case are terminally ill patients seeking only to alleviate their pain with marijuana.

    "What these patients are asserting is the right to control the circumstances of their deaths," Uelmen said.

    A Department of Justice attorney told Fogel today that the Supreme Court has already ruled that current federal drug laws do not recognize any exceptions for medical necessity.

    "What the Supreme Court made quite clear is that there's no medical necessity exception in the Controlled Substances Act," U.S. Department of Justice Senior Counsel Mark Quinlivan said.

    Fogel said he would issue a ruling on the injunction in the near future.

    Complete Title: Judge Indicates He Wants To Protect Medical Pot Patients

    Source: Bay City News (CA)
    Published: July 7, 2003
    Copyright: 2003 Bay City News
    Contact: bcn@pacbell.net
    Website: http://www.baycitynews.com/

    Related Articles & Web Site:


    Pot Reformers Put Pressure on Feinstein

    State Urges Congress To Recognize Pot Law

    Fighting Back in Santa Cruz

    Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2003 at 16:45:13 PT
    By Rachel Konrad, Associated Press
    Source: Associated Press

    San Jose, Calif. - The Drug Enforcement Administration's autumn raid on a farm that cultivated pot for sick and dying people was both illegal and immoral, members of a medical marijuana movement argued Monday in a federal court trial.
    "We are not asserting the right to market marijuana, but to cultivate and use it to prolong life and give comfort to the dying," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who represents about 200 chronically and terminally ill people. "We are asserting the fundamental rights of patients ... so they can meet their death without agony and suffering."

    The case, which pits state rules on medical marijuana against federal laws declaring it an illegal drug, marks the first time a public entity has sued the federal government on behalf of patients who need medical marijuana.

    The city and county of Santa Cruz sued the DEA and Attorney General John Ashcroft in April, demanding that federal agents stay away from a cooperative farm that grows marijuana on a quiet coastal road about 15 miles north of Santa Cruz. In September, agents uprooted about 165 plants and arrested the owners of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, Valerie and Michael Corral.

    The lawsuit claims that seven patients who are plaintiffs have had their marijuana intake substantially decreased since the raid, and that WAMM has been unable to provide members with necessary medicine to relieve nausea, pain and other chronic conditions. This has caused an "insurmountable" level of pain and suffering and hastened the deaths of the most vulnerable WAMM members, lawyers said.

    Marijuana is illegal under federal law. State law in California - as well as Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington - allows marijuana to be grown and distributed to people with a doctor's recommendation.

    The Supreme Court ruled in May 2002 that people charged with violating federal drug laws cannot use medical necessity as their defense. But Uelmen said the justices left open whether states could legalize medical marijuana under the 10th Amendment, which grants states powers not exercised by the federal government, or under the 14th Amendment's right to due process.

    The WAMM case, County of Santa Cruz et. al. v. Ashcroft et. al., also hinges in part on whether the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause applies to the California farm. The clause, which has been applied to cases ranging from Internet privacy to gun control, gives Congress power to regulate trade between states.

    But the patients' attorneys say the farm is neither interstate nor commercial. The cooperative is owned by about 200 patients and caregivers in the Santa Cruz area whose doctors have endorsed the use of marijuana to minimize seizures and migraines, or to improve patients' ability to deal with chemotherapy or other invasive treatments.

    Members of the cooperative receive marijuana up to once a week and must sign documents promising to use the pot only within California state lines. If physically able, they and their caregivers work the fields and supervise distribution of the drug in forms such as cigarettes and baked goods, but no money trades hands. The Corrals say the small farm cannot produce crops for more than roughly 200 members.

    Mark Quinlivan, senior trial counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, said in opening arguments Monday that it didn't matter if the co-op was a noncommercial operation without known ties to gangs or out-of-state groups. Any type of drug trade was an interstate issue, he said, emphasizing that only the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can conduct experiments using illegal drugs.

    "There isn't anyone here who doesn't have a friend or relative in ... dire straits," Quinlivan said to a courtroom packed with people in wheelchairs or suffering from epilepsy, post-polio syndrome and terminal cancer. But, he said, "the FDA drug approval process has served this country well over the years."

    U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel promised to review hundreds of pages of evidence, and he urged WAMM members, city and county officials and federal agents to "work together." He will review commerce clause case precedent and issue a ruling later this summer.

    Michael Cheslosky, a 49-year-old Santa Cruz resident diagnosed with AIDS in 1983, uses marijuana to counter nausea and chronic pain. He said the federal government's invocation of the commerce clause is little more than a means of protecting drug conglomerates, which make billions of dollars from the sale of prescription and over-the-counter pills.

    "Frankly, it all comes down to the alliances between drug policy officials and the drug companies," Cheslosky said after the hearing. "This stuff is free and grows in the ground and can't be regulated."

    The case is County of Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft, 03-01802.

    Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Proponents Say DEA Raid on Pot Farm was Illegal

    Source: Associated Press
    Author: Rachel Konrad, Associated Press
    Published: Monday, July 07, 2003
    Copyright: 2003 Associated Press

    Related Articles & Web Sites:


    Pictures from WAMM Protest

    Judge Indicates He Wants To Protect Pot Patients

    Fighting Back in Santa Cruz

    WAMM Lawsuit Seeks To Curb Federal Authority
  2. I've lived thru the days of a 20 dollar 4 finger 'lids' of sensi I could get almost anywhere ,to 400 dollar and more for a scaled ounce of half seeds and stems ,I have to make appointments to acquire ,if and when I can get it at all.

    ...................and the drug related 'crime' has increased in direct proportion.
    Of coarse ,it would then wouldn't it. In the sixties it wasn't such an issue as it is today.

    My use of marijuana covers nearly 35 years ,which exceeds the number of years many researchers have lived.

    Based on my personal experience I would say ,that the "pot laws cause a 'tremendously' greater harm to a society ".
    And not just to the users of marijuana ,but the entire population.
  3. aye aye roach!

    i think it goes without saying what 99.9% of us here think :)

    a very relevant poll Dig! what with all of this business with Elizabeth Ivol going on.
    haven't heard anything about her since the case was dropped and.. well.. you know what i mean :(

  4. i know.
  5. Amen to that Roach!
  6. after being busted yesterday by ten policemen,l would say they felt that the laws where wrong.They apoligised to me ,lol.They left a mix in the bowl my bong ,lights ,nutreniets.pumps,the fucking lot ?????????.shit they were nice guys.:D.

  7. No kidding...let busted you, let you go & gave you back your stuff?...why'd they hassle you in the first place?
  8. damn critter those were nice cops.... the cops around here just take your shit but they dont arrest u or nothing becuz they dont want to clogg up the court system since there is much more important crimes then smokin a lil herb...
  9. the law plain n simple
  10. common now, do you really think that someone in here is actually going to answer pot instead of pot law??

  11. No kidding....in a pot smoking forum! However, the point needs to be taken beyond the City to the legislatures & voters of the world.
  12. saw this in one of the related threads links at the bottom o another thread... n thought... this could do with a bump, just to see if anyone actually thinks pot does more harm than pot law.

  13. 45-0.

    gee, never saw this comin' :p
  14. Option 3 : neither.

    It's people who make things bad, not MJ or laws concerning it.

    8 year old kiddies smoking pot can't be considered good it can mess them up for life, still this doesn't make pot bad.

    busting joe average potgrower/smoker can't be considered good either he deserves some serious ganja smoking after all he's working his ass off all week long, but the same laws allow law enforcement to bust large scale ganja grow ops run by organized crime, which should not get too rich & powerful.

    Asking us which is worse, is like asking us good and bad.
    You can't distinguish good from bad without including a purpose.

    Pot alone doesn't have a purpose by itself, people assign it a purpose (and usually a very good purpose indeed):hippie:
    Laws do not have a purpose by themselves either, just a bunch of text in a book.
    It's the people and how they chose to apply the text that make the difference.
  15. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Says the man from the Netherlands!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hey bud, I'm from the USA, where a guy named Eddy Leupp, is currently awaiting his sentence, 25 years to LIFE Imprisonment for growing 1000 plants for registered medical patients. He is also a medical patient, do you think the law or the plant is responsible?
    Does he qualify as one of those "large scale grow ops, run by organized crime?". The federal government here seems to think so, even though he has the certificates of dozens and dozens of patients to show for his legitimacy.

    The only reason the large ops have criminals involved, is that they are illegal, you think?

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page