I believe this is ultimately good for The Cause. A very large % of the population are regular marijuana users, the documented effects vs. any other drug are minimal at best, and popular opionion is tital waving on our side. Events such as this are largley positive from a popular opinion perspective. And we do live in a great country where popular oppinion, although not always immediately, ultimately provailes; a true Democracy.
*****
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 14, 7:59 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - A woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive can face federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['2YnTANG_fzs-']='&U=13bok90p8%2fN%3d2YnTANG_fzs-%2fC%3d580550.10293844.10970754.2811172%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4438770';
The ruling was the latest legal defeat for Angel Raich, a mother of two from Oakland suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments who sued the federal government pre-emptively to avoid being arrested for using the drug. On her doctor's advice, Raich eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite.
The latest legal twist once again highlighted the conflict between the federal government, which declares marijuana an illegal controlled substance with no medical value, and the 11 states allowing medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation.
The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.
Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that the gravely ill have a right to marijuana to keep them alive when legal drugs fail.
Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision that she was not immune to prosecution and said she would continue using the drug.
"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh, my God."
The three-judge appeals panel said that the United States has not yet reached the point where "the right to use medical marijuana is 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"
However, the court left open the possibility that Raich, if she was arrested and prosecuted, might be able to argue that she possessed marijuana as a last resort to stay alive, in what is known as a "medical necessity defense."
"I have to get myself busted in order to try to save my life," Raich said.
One of her physicians, Frank Lucido, said in an interview last year that Raich would "probably be dead without marijuana." Lucido, of Berkeley, was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.
Leaders in the medical marijuana movement said they would continue fighting.
"This is literally a matter of life and death for Angel and thousands of other patients, and we will keep fighting on both the legal and political fronts until every patient is safe," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.
New Mexico is poised to become the 12th state to allow medical marijuana under a bill lawmakers approved Wednesday. Gov. Bill Richardson, a strong supporter of the measure, is expected to sign it.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
If you aren't aware of the current Attorney General Gonzales (the former Bush attorney) controversy, or even if you are, read this, as you should be.
Republican says Gonzales should be fired
WASHINGTON — A Senate Republican is calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' **(bush's former white house councel aka defense attorney of the white house) dismissal as Democrats weigh subpoenaing President Bush's top aides in the escalating political furor over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
..
Some of the dismissed prosecutors complained at hearings last week that lawmakers tried to influence political corruption investigations **(basically means republican politicians called prosecutors to try to influence who and what they prosecuted (i.e. bribrary, campaign finance laws, federal violations of the Patriot Act, etc)...** Several also said there had been Justice Department attempts to intimidate them.
E-mails between the Justice Department and the White House, released Tuesday, contradicted the administration's earlier contention that Bush's aides had only limited involvement in the firings. **(They lied under oath and then were caught red handed with emails proving they lied under oath.. Ha!)**
**(The following is their defense... it is customary for presidents to fire all people when the take office, a "cleaning of house".. it is not common, however, to do it mid term during a debate and in the mist of prosecutions that affect the current administration. Basically they are firiing prosicutors based on purely political motives.)**
U.S. attorneys are the federal government's prosecutors and serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be hired or fired for any reason, or none at all.
...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted Wednesday that Gonzales would soon be out.
"I think he is gone. I don't think he'll last long," Reid said in an interview with Nevada reporters. Asked how long, Reid responded: "Days."
Republicans came to Gonzales' defense.
"I don't believe the attorney general should resign over this," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "I don't believe his ability to pursue the terrorist threat has been compromised to the extent that he should resign."
..
WASHINGTON — A Senate Republican is calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' **(bush's former white house councel aka defense attorney of the white house) dismissal as Democrats weigh subpoenaing President Bush's top aides in the escalating political furor over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.
..
Some of the dismissed prosecutors complained at hearings last week that lawmakers tried to influence political corruption investigations **(basically means republican politicians called prosecutors to try to influence who and what they prosecuted (i.e. bribrary, campaign finance laws, federal violations of the Patriot Act, etc)...** Several also said there had been Justice Department attempts to intimidate them.
E-mails between the Justice Department and the White House, released Tuesday, contradicted the administration's earlier contention that Bush's aides had only limited involvement in the firings. **(They lied under oath and then were caught red handed with emails proving they lied under oath.. Ha!)**
**(The following is their defense... it is customary for presidents to fire all people when the take office, a "cleaning of house".. it is not common, however, to do it mid term during a debate and in the mist of prosecutions that affect the current administration. Basically they are firiing prosicutors based on purely political motives.)**
U.S. attorneys are the federal government's prosecutors and serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be hired or fired for any reason, or none at all.
...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted Wednesday that Gonzales would soon be out.
"I think he is gone. I don't think he'll last long," Reid said in an interview with Nevada reporters. Asked how long, Reid responded: "Days."
Republicans came to Gonzales' defense.
"I don't believe the attorney general should resign over this," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "I don't believe his ability to pursue the terrorist threat has been compromised to the extent that he should resign."
..
Another positive development for our Good Cause
Posted on Thu, Mar. 15, 2007
For wary conservatives, all eyes on Bush
BEN FELLER
Associated Press
Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/16907763.htm
WASHINGTON - Every time President Bush makes an overture to Democrats - and he makes plenty these days - conservative Republicans get edgy. They fear he might be so willing to cross the aisle that he will end up crossing them.
"Everybody should be very concerned and very active," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative leader with close White House relations.
"The temptation for an administration in the last two years is to do something for legacy purposes," Norquist said. "And with a Democratic House and Senate, doing something cannot be good."
The White House sees it differently.
Mired in an unpopular war, slumping in the polls and knocked off course by one setback after another, Bush still has time. He can score a few legislative victories and burnish his domestic legacy before he leaves office if he gets help from both parties.
Plus, he has little to lose, not having to worry about an election ever again. Now that Bush needs cooperation from Democrats to get things done, bipartisanship is back in style.
"We have suffered as a party from a perception that we're unwilling and unable to get things done," said Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman. "And so if there are some things that we can do that are consistent with our Republican principles, we should get those things done."
Since Democrats won the House and Senate in November, Bush has appealed to them on education, energy, health care, immigration and Social Security. That has kicked up whispers of triangulation, a model linked to his predecessor, Democrat Bill Clinton.
As designed, it amounted to plucking ideas from the opposing party, taking others from the president's own party and offering up a merged strategy that put the White House above the fray. Even when it worked, it often led to both sides feeling scorched.
Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, had been reassuring conservatives that will not happen under this president. The White House mantra is to work with Democrats without abandoning such tenets as low taxes and personal responsibility.
As Rove put it, "We're going to operate around principles and see if we can find a way to bring the broad center together with us." Then he thought about those words and got more precise about the middle ground: "Broad right center."
William Galston, a top domestic policy aide to Clinton, said triangulation was overhyped. In reality, he said, Clinton worked with Republicans on matters such as overhauling welfare - a campaign pledge - because his views meshed with theirs.
Likewise, Bush may have more in common with Democrats than leaders in his own party on education and immigration.
"The president now has an opportunity to take yes for an answer," said Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Access is not the problem for conservative leaders. They regularly get an audience with the White House though conference calls and meetings, and a friendly heads-up when policy changes are coming.
"I don't feel like we've been cut out at all," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the coalition of House conservatives known as the Republican Study Committee. "Ask me the same thing six months from now. But right now, I think we have good dialogue."
Still, Bush has not always been in concert with the base that helped get him elected twice. Conservative Republicans have derailed one of his Supreme Court nominations and chided him for expanding government more than he has restrained it.
On cultural issues, such as Bush's opposition to abortion and gay marriage, conservatives are not bracing for a fight. The grumbles tend to focus on two bedrock issues, immigration and taxes.
Bush remains adamant that immigration changes should include a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Many Republicans support that approach; conservatives say it is too lenient toward those who entered the country illegally.
"House conservatives will be exceedingly unhappy about anything that has even a faint aroma of amnesty," Hensarling said.
A stalemate, though, does the GOP no good. Republican leaders fear their party could splinter in the 2008 election year.
On taxes, the president has put it plainly: "We're not going to raise taxes." But the worries are not going away.
To entice Democrats to negotiate on overhauling Social Security, Bush has offered to meet without ruling anything out. Many conservatives say nothing good can come from that; they do not even want him in the room with Democrats. Their nightmare is a deal in which taxes go up or benefits go down to make the program more solvent, yet without the private investment accounts that Bush wants.
Some of this unrest may be rooted solely in memories of disappointment, Gillespie said.
Bush's father famously broke his "read my lips" pledge against raising taxes in a budget deal with Democrats. Republicans had to work to halt President Reagan's tax deal with Democrats in 1985, led in part by a Wyoming lawmaker named Dick Cheney.
Norquist said the pressure on Bush to give in to Democrats - even one time - will be immense.
Then again, Bush seems inclined to do more than just say no, and he is running out of time.
"The president doesn't have two years," Galston said. "I don't think he has a year. He has about nine months before it's all politics all the time. He has to decide how successful he wants the remainder of his presidency to be."
For wary conservatives, all eyes on Bush
BEN FELLER
Associated Press
Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/politics/16907763.htm
WASHINGTON - Every time President Bush makes an overture to Democrats - and he makes plenty these days - conservative Republicans get edgy. They fear he might be so willing to cross the aisle that he will end up crossing them.
"Everybody should be very concerned and very active," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative leader with close White House relations.
"The temptation for an administration in the last two years is to do something for legacy purposes," Norquist said. "And with a Democratic House and Senate, doing something cannot be good."
The White House sees it differently.
Mired in an unpopular war, slumping in the polls and knocked off course by one setback after another, Bush still has time. He can score a few legislative victories and burnish his domestic legacy before he leaves office if he gets help from both parties.
Plus, he has little to lose, not having to worry about an election ever again. Now that Bush needs cooperation from Democrats to get things done, bipartisanship is back in style.
"We have suffered as a party from a perception that we're unwilling and unable to get things done," said Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman. "And so if there are some things that we can do that are consistent with our Republican principles, we should get those things done."
Since Democrats won the House and Senate in November, Bush has appealed to them on education, energy, health care, immigration and Social Security. That has kicked up whispers of triangulation, a model linked to his predecessor, Democrat Bill Clinton.
As designed, it amounted to plucking ideas from the opposing party, taking others from the president's own party and offering up a merged strategy that put the White House above the fray. Even when it worked, it often led to both sides feeling scorched.
Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, had been reassuring conservatives that will not happen under this president. The White House mantra is to work with Democrats without abandoning such tenets as low taxes and personal responsibility.
As Rove put it, "We're going to operate around principles and see if we can find a way to bring the broad center together with us." Then he thought about those words and got more precise about the middle ground: "Broad right center."
William Galston, a top domestic policy aide to Clinton, said triangulation was overhyped. In reality, he said, Clinton worked with Republicans on matters such as overhauling welfare - a campaign pledge - because his views meshed with theirs.
Likewise, Bush may have more in common with Democrats than leaders in his own party on education and immigration.
"The president now has an opportunity to take yes for an answer," said Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Access is not the problem for conservative leaders. They regularly get an audience with the White House though conference calls and meetings, and a friendly heads-up when policy changes are coming.
"I don't feel like we've been cut out at all," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the coalition of House conservatives known as the Republican Study Committee. "Ask me the same thing six months from now. But right now, I think we have good dialogue."
Still, Bush has not always been in concert with the base that helped get him elected twice. Conservative Republicans have derailed one of his Supreme Court nominations and chided him for expanding government more than he has restrained it.
On cultural issues, such as Bush's opposition to abortion and gay marriage, conservatives are not bracing for a fight. The grumbles tend to focus on two bedrock issues, immigration and taxes.
Bush remains adamant that immigration changes should include a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Many Republicans support that approach; conservatives say it is too lenient toward those who entered the country illegally.
"House conservatives will be exceedingly unhappy about anything that has even a faint aroma of amnesty," Hensarling said.
A stalemate, though, does the GOP no good. Republican leaders fear their party could splinter in the 2008 election year.
On taxes, the president has put it plainly: "We're not going to raise taxes." But the worries are not going away.
To entice Democrats to negotiate on overhauling Social Security, Bush has offered to meet without ruling anything out. Many conservatives say nothing good can come from that; they do not even want him in the room with Democrats. Their nightmare is a deal in which taxes go up or benefits go down to make the program more solvent, yet without the private investment accounts that Bush wants.
Some of this unrest may be rooted solely in memories of disappointment, Gillespie said.
Bush's father famously broke his "read my lips" pledge against raising taxes in a budget deal with Democrats. Republicans had to work to halt President Reagan's tax deal with Democrats in 1985, led in part by a Wyoming lawmaker named Dick Cheney.
Norquist said the pressure on Bush to give in to Democrats - even one time - will be immense.
Then again, Bush seems inclined to do more than just say no, and he is running out of time.
"The president doesn't have two years," Galston said. "I don't think he has a year. He has about nine months before it's all politics all the time. He has to decide how successful he wants the remainder of his presidency to be."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)