For the person with the prescription it isn't.
--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/28/2006 8:35:19 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> I'd tell her, "Sure I'll give you money to buy an illegal substance
> and be an accessory to a crime." Shes lucky you don't call the PD on
> her. I might.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> =========================================
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>
> Medical Cannabis is not an illegal substance in California, Thank God.
>
> I have a medical marijuana card issued by the city and county of San
> Francisco in accordance with the State Laws of California that
govern it's use for
> folks like me, living with AIDS.
>
> She can call the PD, but in CA even if she doesn't have a
prescription from
> her Doctor, it would be at the most, a $500 misdemeanor, which she
could work
> off doing volunteer work. California doesn't include marijuana in
it's "war"
> on drugs. It's just not a local war, now of course, WashDC doesn't
agree with
> this state and the others who have medical marijuana, but Heck,
They and I
> don't agree on one thing, but that's for another group, LOL.
>
> I know all this from having been in court for my small amount of
pot, it was
> interesting, LOL, I was the only person in Santa Barbara court with a
> marijuana case, all the others were under age 25, so I caused I bit
of laughter in
> the court room, my being from San Francisco and all, it was funny,
good thing
> I felt it was funny as well, otherwise, it could have been mucho
humiliating!
>
> Bill, San Francisco
> Living with a chronic disease, called HIV, thank goodness for medical
> cannabis!
> And my little dog who gives me so much JOY!
>
> _http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/_
> (http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/)
>
>
> Medical Marijuana
> Last Updated June 24, 2005
> Medical marijuana made national headlines this year when the Supreme
Court
> ruled that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana
patients,
> even in states that have compassionate use laws. This ruling was
based on the
> Commerce Clause, and was not a referendum on the validity of medical
> marijuana. In fact, one of the Supreme Court justices urged medical
marijuana
> advocates to make the will of the people heard in Congress by
changing federal law.
> Federal Law
> In the wake of the June 2005 Supreme Court decision, Congress had an
> opportunity to protect patients by passing an amendment to a Justice
Department
> spending bill that would have prohibited the department from
spending any money
> to undermine state medical marijuana laws. The amendment, offered
for the
> third year in a row by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-22nd/NY) and Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher
> (R-46th/CA), did not pass but got 161 votes - more than it has ever
received
> before. This is substantial progress given that in 1998, the U.S.
House of
> Representatives voted 311-94 for a non-binding resolution
condemning medical
> marijuana.
> Marijuana is classified as a _Schedule I_
> (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html) substance, defined
as having a high potential for abuse and no
> medicinal value. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have
been
> submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. The most
recent, submitted
> in 2002 by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, calls for a
full review
> of the scientific research and medical practice regarding
marijuana. The Food
> and Drug Administration has yet to respond to this petition.
> In 1978, the federal government was forced to allow some patients
access to
> medical marijuana after a "medical necessity" defense was
recognized in
> court, creating the Investigational New Drug (IND) compassionate
access program.
> The IND, which allowed some patients to receive medical marijuana
from the
> government, was closed to new patients in 1992 after it was flooded by
> applications from AIDS patients. Today, seven surviving patients
still receive medical
> marijuana from the federal government.
> State Law
> The Raich Supreme Court decision does not overturn or affect state
law, and
> 99% of all marijuana arrests take place at the state or local level.
This
> means that state laws afford substantial protection to medical
marijuana
> patients. Currently, laws that effectively remove state-level
criminal penalties for
> growing and/or possessing medical marijuana are in place in Alaska,
> California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Vermont and
> Washington. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have
symbolic medical
> marijuana laws (laws that support medical marijuana but do not provide
> patients with legal protection under state law).
> In 2005, New Mexico came very close to passing a medical marijuana
bill. The
> governor pleged to sign the bill, but it was not called for a vote
in the
> House before the end of the legislative session. In 1998, voters in
the
> District of Columbia approved a medical marijuana initiative by 69%
but Congress was
> able to nullify the vote results because D.C. is a federal district
and not
> a state.
> Twelve states have medical marijuana research laws, and only fifteen
states
> have never had a positive medical marijuana law.
> The Courts
> In addition to changing state laws, medical marijuana advocates have
pursued
> reform through the courts, most recently in the Raich v. Ashcroft
Supreme
> Court case. Angel Raich, a medical marijuana patient in California,
sued the
> federal government to stop federal raids against patients. Though
she did not
> win the case, the ruling left state medical marijuana laws intact.
> In 1997, _Conant v. McCaffrey_
>
(http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/challenges/cases/conant/index.cfm)
, a class-action lawsuit, was filed on
> behalf of physicians and seriously ill patients against Drug Czar
General Barry
> McCaffrey and other top federal officials who threatened to revoke
> prescription licenses or criminally prosecute physicians who
recommend medical
> marijuana. In 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals
> unanimously decided to uphold the right of doctors to recommend
marijuana to their
> patients and of patients to receive that recommendation. Judge Mary
Schroeder
> wrote the majority opinion, which noted that the federal
governmentâs policy
> of revoking doctors' licenses âleavesâ¦no security for free
discussion.â A
> concurring opinion by Judge Alex Kozinski stepped even further,
noting the
> prevailing evidence on the medical usefulness of marijuana.
> Public Support
> Medical marijuana is one of the most _widely supported_
> (http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/publicopinio/publicmdmj.cfm)
issues in drug policy reform.
> Numerous published studies suggest that marijuana has medical value
in treating
> patients with serious illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, cancer,
multiple
> sclerosis, epilepsy, and _chronic pain_
> (http://www.drugpolicy.org/law/painmedicati/) . In 1999, the
_Institute of Medicine_
> (http://bob.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html/) , in the most
comprehensive study of medical marijuana's efficacy
> to date, concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety . . .
all can be
> mitigated by marijuana." Allowing patients legal access to medical
marijuana
> has been discussed by numerous organizations, including the AIDS
Action
> Council, American Bar Association, American Public Health
Association, California
> Medical Association, National Association of Attorneys General, and
several
> state nurses associations.
> Public opinion is also in favor of ending the prohibition of medical
> marijuana. According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans are in
favor of "making
> marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to
reduce pain
> and suffering." In a 2004 poll commissioned by AARP, 72% of
Americans ages
> 45 and older thought marijuana should be legal for medicinal
purposes if
> recommended by a doctor. Also, since 1996, voters in eight states
plus the
> District of Columbia have passed favorable medical marijuana ballot
initiatives.
>
" Lets talk about our wonderful little friends!
Join today! "
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chihuahuas/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
