U.S. House decides to continue to prosecute sick people

willyd

willyd

Newbie
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
281
Reaction score
0
"The House on Wednesday voted to continue to allow federal prosecution of those who smoke marijuana for medical purposes in states with laws that permit it."
"By a 259-163 vote, the House again turned down an amendment that would have blocked the Justice Department from prosecuting people in the 11 states with such medical marijuana laws."

http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v06/n845/a07.htm?134
 
What the hell...

"Here, take this, it'll help with the healing process. No no, don't worry, it's completely legal. But if ANYONE sees you using this... Actually, here, sign this form disavowing my liability in the event of a criminal conviction. And here... and here... Initial there... Okay. See you monday!"
 
And if your entire body is riddled with cancerous tumours, likelihood of death with maximum pain 99.9999%? Give them a j.
 
This looks suspicious, and being from a marijuana site doesn't make me feel any better. I sense a strong anti-government spin.

Give me a few minutes.

Edit:

First off, I fail at reading. This story is AP, so being from a marijuana site is irrelevant.

Random stuff that looks a lot like pedantry follows. I include it in case anyone wants the legal bases on which I make my judgements, outlined below.

The Supreme Court case mentioned in the article is Gonzales v. Raich (see here). The question then was whether the federal government is allowed to override state laws, specifically banning the home cultivation of marijuana even though California law allows it in some cases. The judgement was that the federal Controlled Substances Act is valid, and the government can tell anyone in any state not to grow marijuana for any reason.

On Wednesday (use the drop-down menu), the House of Representatives spent the day debating the state of the union--how to spend our money. The marijuana thing was roll call 333. Representative Hinchey proposed that there be no funds allocated to prevent the States from carrying out their pro-marijuana laws, which would prevent the Justice Department from prosecuting marijuana users despite the prior Supreme Court case. The Hinchey amendment failed by only 96 votes, and the votes fell mostly along party lines, with Democrats supporting Hinchey and Republicans opposing him. Fun fact: if the 53 Democrats who voted No had voted Yes, Hinchey would have had a majority.

Pedantry ceases. My judgement begins.

So the article is accurate and my distrust was put in the wrong place. However:
1) 90% of House Republicans opposed the amendment as opposed to only 26% of Democrats, and 80% of the noes were from Republicans. This means that it isn't like "OMG THE HOUSE"; it's more appropriately "OMG THE REPUBLICANS".
2) Do we really have a big problem with the Justice Department running out and screwing medicinal marijuana users in the ass?
 
I don't like drugs... but that's a stupid thing. If there's laws allowing it for medical purposes in certain states, they shouldn't be able to prosecute those people if they're using it as prescribed.

Otherwise that same mentality can be applied to any law.
 
List of failures? :p


But anyway, I believe that using any narcotic drug (except morphine and tranquilizers used for medical things) is morally wrong. That is only my opinion though.
 
15357 said:
List of failures? :p


But anyway, I believe that using any narcotic drug (except morphine and tranquilizers used for medical things) is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
That's a contradiction and you know it.
 
15357 said:
List of failures? :p


But anyway, I believe that using any narcotic drug (except morphine and tranquilizers used for medical things) is morally wrong. That is only my opinion though.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is wrong.
 
We're all wrong! Let's go out for Ham Sandwiches! Okay, its not Kosher! We're wronger yet!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top