Drugs, Vaccinations & Medicine -  Legal Marijuana? (48821 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon2/2/00 1:00 AM 
To: All  (1 of 1260) 
The San Francisco board of supervisors Monday okayed a plan to issue identification cards to medical marijuana users.

The board voted 10-1 in favor of adopting a city ordinance designed to allow qualified cardholders to obtain high-grade pot from several San Francisco dispensaries and dispel their fears of being arrested for possession of drugs.

Forum Manager: Law Forum - www.delphi.com/perlaw
Forum Manager: Southern States Forum - www.delphi.com/southern
Forum Manager: Personal Law Canada - www.delphi.com/canlaw
Forum Manager: Delphi Medical Forum - www.delphi.com/medhealth

Host: Rainbow Forum -Users Helping Users- CF250


From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon7/18/00 6:39 AM 
To: All  (2 of 1260) 
 283.2 in reply to 283.1 
From the Atlanta Constitution www.ajc.com :

"A federal judge cleared the way for the Oakland, Calif., Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes, saying the government has not proved that seriously ill patients should be denied the drug. Justice Department spokeswoman Gretchen Michael said officials were reviewing the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer."


From: IndiKris (KP980808518) DelphiPlus Member Icon8/2/00 5:24 PM 
To: All  (3 of 1260) 
 283.3 in reply to 283.2 

"In 1996, voters in California and Arizona approved ballot
initiatives that legalized medicinal marijuana. Court documents
released in a lawsuit reveal that shortly thereafter, the Office
of National Drug Control Policy sought to stamp out any similar
initiative efforts in other states - and to counteract the will
of the voters in California and Arizona."

Source: Salon - July 27, 2000


Forum Assistant


From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon8/3/00 3:51 PM 
To: All  (4 of 1260) 
 283.4 in reply to 283.1 
ACLU Urges Federal Court to End Government Persecution
Of Doctors Over Medical Marijuana
Thursday, August 3, 2000

SAN FRANCISCO -- The American Civil Liberties Union today urged a federal court to permanently block the federal government from censoring or criminally prosecuting California doctors who recommend medical marijuana to their patients.

"Today we are asking the court to put an end once and for all to the White House's politically driven attempt to negate the will of California voters by threatening physicians," said Graham Boyd of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, who argued the case before U.S. District Judge William Alsup.

The threat of jail or censorship remains even after a 1997 preliminary court order barred federal law enforcement officials from acting, according to ACLU legal papers filed on behalf of a group of physicians and their seriously ill patients.

"The federal government has conceded that a doctor can discuss medical marijuana, but not recommend it," Boyd added. "But the government refuses to explain the difference between 'discuss' and 'recommend.' Faced with a vague policy, the only option for many physicians is silence."

At issue is the language of Proposition 215, approved by California voters in November 1996, which makes it legal for sick people in the state to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when recommended by a doctor.

"The medical community deserves more respect than having a retired General in Washington tell us how to practice medicine," said Dr. Marcus Conant, a San Francisco specialist in AIDS treatment and the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Clinton administration maintains that marijuana is illegal under federal law and has pledged to punish doctors who recommend its use. A key part of the federal plan was a threat that physicians who recommend marijuana to patients could lose their right to prescribe drugs, face cutoff from Medicare and Medicaid eligibility and be exposed to criminal prosecution.

But according to the ACLU's brief, "even now, over three years later, the federal officials most responsible for the policy cannot -- or will not -- say what it means."

"This case is not about whether the government should legalize the medical use of marijuana," said co-counsel Ann Brick of the ACLU of Northern California. "It is about whether the government may prevent doctors from providing a patient with an honest medical opinion recommending marijuana."

Despite White House efforts to negate the initiative's intent, courts thus far have consistently rejected the government's spurious arguments.

A ruling last month by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer cleared the way for an Oakland club to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes. The court found that the government "still has not offered any evidence to rebut" the group's findings that cannabis is medically necessary for some seriously ill patients. The government has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Oakland ruling came three days after San Francisco health officials started issuing photo I.D. cards to marijuana users who had their doctors' approval.

Court papers filed in today's case also revealed that government officials may have stepped over the line in their zeal to defeat the 1996 initiative at the ballot box.

According to deposition testimony and taped telephone conversations obtained by the ACLU, White House "drug czar" General Barry R. McCaffrey sought exemption from a White House policy preventing the federal government from taking positions on state ballot initiatives.

Although President Clinton agreed to allow McCaffrey to speak out, he was explicitly instructed only to "educate" and not to "oppose" the medical marijuana initiatives in California and Arizona, court papers reveal. Nonetheless, McCaffrey issued press releases urging voters to "vote no" on the initiatives; wrote multiple letters stating that he "opposed" the initiatives, and wrote a memo reporting on rallies he attended to oppose the initiatives.

"We do not, in our suit, accuse McCaffrey of acting illegally in connection with the media campaign or the election activity," Boyd said. "Instead, we point out that the Administration harbored an extraordinary animus against any deviation from the official orthodoxy that marijuana is a uniformly dangerous substance."

The case is McCaffrey v. Conant, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendants named in the suit are the key federal officials involved in drafting and implementing the Clinton administration strategy.

The national ACLU filed the initial lawsuit in January 1997, along with the ACLU of Northern California, the Lindesmith Center, New York-based drug policy group, and attorneys with the San Francisco firm of Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon & Rubin.

A legal brief in the case is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/court/conant_v_mccaffrey.html


From: IndiKris (KP980808518) DelphiPlus Member Icon8/4/00 12:27 AM 
To: All  (5 of 1260) 
 283.5 in reply to 283.4 
More on California -v- US Government on Medical Marijuana Law


"The Department of Justice on Thursday
pledged to continue resisting California's voter-approved medical
marijuana law, arguing the government has the right to penalize
doctors who recommend cannabis by revoking their licenses to
dispense medication.

Justice department lawyers argued their position in U.S. District
Court here during what may be the final stage of a lawsuit brought
by the American Civil Liberties Union."

More Details: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIWDPM7HBC.html

Forum Assistant


Message 6 of 1260 was Deleted  

From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon8/10/00 7:20 AM 
To: All  (7 of 1260) 
 283.7 in reply to 283.6 
A post having nothing to do with marijuana or California was deleted.

From: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon8/29/00 10:05 PM 
To: IndiKris (KP980808518) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (8 of 1260) 
 283.8 in reply to 283.3 
From AP:

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred distribution of marijuana to people in California whose doctors recommend it for medicinal purposes. The court, voting 7-1 to grant an emergency Clinton administration request, postponed the effect of federal court rulings that would have allowed a California club to distribute the illegal drug for medicinal use. Government lawyers had sought emergency help from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who referred the request to the full court. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented"

Details: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIOW2Y2ICC.html


From: IndiKris (KP980808518) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/8/00 11:22 AM 
To: Glen (GEAATL) DelphiPlus Member Icon  (9 of 1260) 
 283.9 in reply to 283.8 

"The government cannot penalize California doctors who recommend marijuana for medical purposes under the state's voter-approved medical marijuana law by revoking their prescription licenses, a federal judge has ruled. The order by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup Thursday came a month after the federal government said it would resist the law, known as Proposition 215. Alsup wrote that the Department of Justice is permanently prohibited from revoking licenses to dispense medication "merely because the doctor recommends medical marijuana to a patient based on a sincere medical judgment and from initiating any investigation solely on that ground." "


Chief Asst. Manager


From: IndiKris (KP980808518) DelphiPlus Member Icon9/8/00 11:03 PM 
To: All  (10 of 1260) 
 283.10 in reply to 283.9 
Here is a PDF format for the court opinion in Conant v. McCaffrey - the recent medical marijuana case:


Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 ... 1231-1240 1241-1250 1251-1260
Adjust text size:
Using a mobile device? Switch to the Mobile Site.

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Advertising | Membership Plans
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Service.