I believe it is within every citizen's authority......

[Joe Fields]

Using Gonzalez' own words, that "he believes that we are a nation of laws..." and that he believes that "We are following the laws under the Constitution of the United States..." (in regard to internal spying), then I believe it is within every citizen's right (those citizens who live in states which have passed statutes allowing the use of medicinal marijuana) to freely consume their medicine without the worry of federal intervention by law enforcement authority.

We are, or supposed to be a union of states, each state governed by their own set of laws, with a central power overseen by the federal government.

Why then does the Federal government feel it has the right to overrule authority by the states which have adopted medicinal marijuana laws?

So, if Gonzalez and his gang believe they are acting within the law, then it CANNOT be questioned as to whether the tens of thousands of suffering, whose only remedy is the consumption of marijuana to help ease their suffering have the LEGAL right to do so.

The laws which were written in the states that allow medicinal marijuana use aren't open to interpretation, unlike the case with internal spying.

[northzax]

1. the Federal Government doesn't deal with medical usage

it simply says that you cannot, under federal law, grow, sell, or purchase marijuana without a federal license.

[Joe Fields]

2. I am well aware of that.

My point is that the Federal government overrides state authority on the marijuana issues.

[northzax]

3. not at all

the States do not have the authority to maintain looser regulations of pharmaceutical products than the federal government does. Under Federal Law, approval of pharmeceuticals lies with the FDA, not individual states. States can have more stringent restrictions that the FDA, but not looser ones. And since the FDA classifies THC as a schedule I drug, a State cannot overrule that and classify it as a prescription medication.

Same thing would happen if a state decided to approve the use of Thalidomide as an anti-nausea agent, until the FDA relists it (which is in the process of happening, I understand) a state can't go farther.

now a state can be MORE restrictive, insisting on a scrip for pseudophedrine, for instance, like Oregon has done, but not less restrictive.

[Joe Fields]

4. Marijuana in an her, not a manufactured, synthesized product.

The FDA has only one reason for it's opposition to marijuana. No drug manufacturer has a patent on it and cannot make billions from it.

Marijuana has been studied to death and the science of research cannot come up with any potential harms from it.

Certain states recognize this and have acted in good conscience, siding with the suffering of patients.


But the DEA will bust you if you are a cancer patient and get caught legally growing or smoking grass, to ease your suffering, thus creating more suffering.

The bottom line: Certain state's laws protect medicinal marijuana useage. No law protects the Bush administration spying program!

[northzax]

5. actually, the objection comes from synthetic rope manufacturers

originally, who didn't want to compete with Hemp. And there have not been conclusive double blind studies on the efficacy of marijuana as a delivery device for anti-nausea medication. those types of studies cost millions, and no one wants to pay for them, since there is no profit to be made from it. I suggest funding one.