Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments

Expand Messages
  • Steven Nolin
    we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on green paper if anyone would like to pick some up to hand out... ... ===== Thanks, Steve Nolin stevenolin.com
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on green
      paper if anyone would like to pick some up to hand
      out...

      --- Richard Lake <rlake@...> wrote:

      > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
      > From: Richard Lake <rlake@...>
      > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
      > arguments
      > To: DPFT-L@...
      >
      > I have received several requests asking if a
      > transcript of the court
      > session is available. I have yet to see a complete
      > transcript, but the AP
      > put out the following yesterday.
      >
      > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
      > indicating that the below
      > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
      > otherwise, please send me a
      > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
      >
      > Richard
      > rlake@...
      >
      > ------------------
      >
      > Monday, November 29, 2004 � Last updated 3:49 p.m.
      > PT
      >
      > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
      > ASSOCIATED PRESS
      >
      > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral argument
      > on medical marijuana, as
      > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
      >
      > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand it, if
      > California's law
      > applies, then none of this homegrown or medical-use
      > marijuana will be on
      > any interstate market. And it is in the area of
      > something traditionally
      > regulated by states."
      >
      > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
      > Justice O'Connor, let me
      > first say that I think it might be a bit optimistic
      > to think that none of
      > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
      > California law would be
      > diverted into the national market for marijuana.
      > And, of course, the
      > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at almost
      > every step of the act,
      > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
      > substances from medical to
      > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances under
      > Schedule I into the
      > national market."
      >
      > ---
      >
      > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful possession of
      > noncontraband
      > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge to
      > the statutory regime. It
      > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in
      > promoting health. And I
      > think the clearest example of that is the fact that,
      > to the extent there is
      > anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it's
      > THC, which has been
      > isolated and provided in a pill form."
      >
      > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in this
      > record, a showing that, for
      > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were some
      > 30-odd drugs taken.
      > None of them worked. This was the only one that
      > would. . If there were to
      > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in this
      > case, would there be any
      > defense?"
      >
      > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we would
      > take the position, based
      > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis case -
      > and, obviously,
      > different justices on this court read the opinion
      > differently and had
      > different views on the extent to which the
      > medical-necessity defense was
      > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine the
      > federal government, in
      > that case, if it took the unlikely step of bringing
      > the prosecution in the
      > first place, would be arguing that, on the authority
      > of Oakland Cannabis,
      > the medical-necessity defense was not available."
      >
      > ---
      >
      > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
      > chemical components in crude
      > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just sort of
      > belies any logic that
      > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
      > marijuana doesn't have much
      > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
      > understand, smoking is
      > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's also
      > true of marijuana. And
      > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
      > effective delivery device for
      > medicine, I think, is also something that really
      > doesn't have any future as
      > medicine."
      >
      > ---
      >
      > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
      > women: "If you accept the
      > government's definition of economic, then washing
      > dishes, today, would be
      > economic, and that would be within the power of
      > Congress to reach."
      >
      > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's noneconomic
      > because one of these
      > people is a self-grower, another one is getting it
      > from a friend for
      > nothing. But I don't see what reason that you have
      > given, or any reason
      > that you haven't given, for us to believe that, out
      > of - now I'm going to
      > assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000 potential
      > users - everybody is
      > going to get it from a friend or from plants in the
      > back yard. Seems to me
      > the sensible assumption is they're going to get it
      > on the street. And once
      > they get it, under California law, it's not a crime
      > for them to have it and
      > use it. But they're going to get it in the street."
      >
      > BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive not to
      > get it on the street,
      > because getting it on the street is going to subject
      > them to criminal
      > prosecution, under both California and federal law.
      > ... We are talking
      > about a class of people here who are sick people,
      > who don't necessarily
      > want to violate the law."
      >
      > SOUTER: "And if I am a sick person, I'm going to
      > say, `Look, if they're not
      > prosecuting every kid who buys, what, a nickel bag
      > or whatever you call a
      > small quantity today, they're not going to prosecute
      > me, either.' I mean,
      > there's not going to be any incentive, it seems to
      > me, to avoid the street
      > market."
      >
      > ---
      >
      > JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: "You know, he grows heroin,
      > cocaine, tomatoes that
      > are going to have genomes in them that could, at
      > some point, lead to tomato
      > children that will eventually affect Boston. You
      > know, we can - oil that's
      > never, in fact, being used, but we want an inventory
      > of it, federally. You
      > know, I can multiply the examples. And you can, too.
      > So you're going to get
      > around all those examples by saying what?"
      >
      > BARNETT: "By saying that it's all going to depend on
      > the regulatory scheme."
      >
      > ---
      >
      > JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: "Congress has applied this
      > theory in other
      > contexts. One is the protection of endangered
      > species. Congress has made it
      > unlawful to possess ivory, for example. It doesn't
      > matter whether you got
      > it lawfully or not. Or eagle feathers, the mere
      > possession of it, whether
      > you got it through interstate commerce or not. And
      > Congress' reasoning is,
      > `We can't tell whether it came through interstate
      > commerce or not, and to
      > try to prove that is just beyond our ability; and,
      > therefore, it is
      > unlawful to possess it, period.' Now, are those
      > laws, likewise,
      > unconstitutional, as going beyond Congress' commerce
      > power?"
      >
      > BARNETT: "Not if they're an essential part of a
      > larger regulatory scheme
      > that would be undercut, unless those activities are
      > reached. . This class
      > of activities - because it's been isolated by the
      > state of California and
      > is policed by the state of California, so that it's
      > entirely separated from
      > the market."
      >


      =====
      Thanks,

      Steve Nolin

      stevenolin.com



      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
      http://my.yahoo.com
    • Dr. Babs
      Where can I pick some up, maybe 200? Tracy ... === message truncated === ===== Tracy Blevins, Ph.D. Medical Marijuana Barbie
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Where can I pick some up, maybe 200?

        Tracy


        --- Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:

        >
        > we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on
        > green
        > paper if anyone would like to pick some up to hand
        > out...
        >
        > --- Richard Lake <rlake@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
        > > From: Richard Lake <rlake@...>
        > > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
        > > arguments
        > > To: DPFT-L@...
        > >
        > > I have received several requests asking if a
        > > transcript of the court
        > > session is available. I have yet to see a complete
        > > transcript, but the AP
        > > put out the following yesterday.
        > >
        > > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
        > > indicating that the below
        > > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
        > > otherwise, please send me a
        > > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
        > >
        > > Richard
        > > rlake@...
        > >
        > > ------------------
        > >
        > > Monday, November 29, 2004 � Last updated 3:49 p.m.
        > > PT
        > >
        > > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
        > > ASSOCIATED PRESS
        > >
        > > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral argument
        > > on medical marijuana, as
        > > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
        > >
        > > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand it,
        > if
        > > California's law
        > > applies, then none of this homegrown or
        > medical-use
        > > marijuana will be on
        > > any interstate market. And it is in the area of
        > > something traditionally
        > > regulated by states."
        > >
        > > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
        > > Justice O'Connor, let me
        > > first say that I think it might be a bit
        > optimistic
        > > to think that none of
        > > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
        > > California law would be
        > > diverted into the national market for marijuana.
        > > And, of course, the
        > > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at almost
        > > every step of the act,
        > > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
        > > substances from medical to
        > > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances
        > under
        > > Schedule I into the
        > > national market."
        > >
        > > ---
        > >
        > > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful possession
        > of
        > > noncontraband
        > > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge to
        > > the statutory regime. It
        > > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in
        > > promoting health. And I
        > > think the clearest example of that is the fact
        > that,
        > > to the extent there is
        > > anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana,
        > it's
        > > THC, which has been
        > > isolated and provided in a pill form."
        > >
        > > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in this
        > > record, a showing that, for
        > > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were
        > some
        > > 30-odd drugs taken.
        > > None of them worked. This was the only one that
        > > would. . If there were to
        > > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in this
        > > case, would there be any
        > > defense?"
        > >
        > > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we would
        > > take the position, based
        > > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis case
        > -
        > > and, obviously,
        > > different justices on this court read the opinion
        > > differently and had
        > > different views on the extent to which the
        > > medical-necessity defense was
        > > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine the
        > > federal government, in
        > > that case, if it took the unlikely step of
        > bringing
        > > the prosecution in the
        > > first place, would be arguing that, on the
        > authority
        > > of Oakland Cannabis,
        > > the medical-necessity defense was not available."
        > >
        > > ---
        > >
        > > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
        > > chemical components in crude
        > > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just sort
        > of
        > > belies any logic that
        > > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
        > > marijuana doesn't have much
        > > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
        > > understand, smoking is
        > > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's also
        > > true of marijuana. And
        > > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
        > > effective delivery device for
        > > medicine, I think, is also something that really
        > > doesn't have any future as
        > > medicine."
        > >
        > > ---
        > >
        > > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
        > > women: "If you accept the
        > > government's definition of economic, then washing
        > > dishes, today, would be
        > > economic, and that would be within the power of
        > > Congress to reach."
        > >
        > > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's noneconomic
        > > because one of these
        > > people is a self-grower, another one is getting it
        > > from a friend for
        > > nothing. But I don't see what reason that you have
        > > given, or any reason
        > > that you haven't given, for us to believe that,
        > out
        > > of - now I'm going to
        > > assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000
        > potential
        > > users - everybody is
        > > going to get it from a friend or from plants in
        > the
        > > back yard. Seems to me
        > > the sensible assumption is they're going to get it
        > > on the street. And once
        > > they get it, under California law, it's not a
        > crime
        > > for them to have it and
        > > use it. But they're going to get it in the
        > street."
        > >
        > > BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive not to
        > > get it on the street,
        > > because getting it on the street is going to
        > subject
        > > them to criminal
        > > prosecution, under both California and federal
        > law.
        > > ... We are talking
        > > about a class of people here who are sick people,
        > > who don't necessarily
        > > want to violate the law."
        > >
        > > SOUTER: "And if I am a sick person, I'm going to
        > > say, `Look, if they're not
        > > prosecuting every kid who buys, what, a nickel bag
        > > or whatever you call a
        > > small quantity today, they're not going to
        > prosecute
        > > me, either.' I mean,
        > > there's not going to be any incentive, it seems to
        > > me, to avoid the street
        > > market."
        > >
        > > ---
        > >
        > > JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: "You know, he grows
        > heroin,
        > > cocaine, tomatoes that
        > > are going to have genomes in them that could, at
        > > some point, lead to tomato
        > > children that will eventually affect Boston. You
        > > know, we can - oil that's
        > > never, in fact, being used, but we want an
        > inventory
        >
        === message truncated ===


        =====
        Tracy Blevins, Ph.D.
        Medical Marijuana Barbie
        http://rainbeauxbarbie.blogspot.com/
        http://houston.indymedia.org/uploads/3cdp.avi
        Me giving the Beeyotch Treatment to Swift Boat
        Liar For Bush John O'Neill
        READ http://www.bartcop.com EVERY DAY

        Things haven't changed much where George W Bush comes from. Houston is a cruel, crazy town on a filthy river in East Texas with no zoning laws and a culture of sex, money and violence. It's a shabby, sprawling metropolis ruled by brazen women, crooked cops and super-rich pansexual cowboys who live by the code of the West - which can mean just about anything you need it to mean, in a pinch.

        --Hunter S. Thompson
      • Steven Nolin
        we could meet up at walters as i need to bring some up there unless someone else has. i don t get off till 7 and cheryl is cooking steaks tonight i hear. how
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          we could meet up at walters as i need to bring some up
          there unless someone else has. i don't get off till 7
          and cheryl is cooking steaks tonight i hear. how about
          friday night about 7:30?

          --- "Dr. Babs" <scientistpolitician@...> wrote:

          >
          > Where can I pick some up, maybe 200?
          >
          > Tracy
          >
          >
          > --- Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on
          > > green
          > > paper if anyone would like to pick some up to hand
          > > out...
          > >
          > > --- Richard Lake <rlake@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
          > > > From: Richard Lake <rlake@...>
          > > > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
          > > > arguments
          > > > To: DPFT-L@...
          > > >
          > > > I have received several requests asking if a
          > > > transcript of the court
          > > > session is available. I have yet to see a
          > complete
          > > > transcript, but the AP
          > > > put out the following yesterday.
          > > >
          > > > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
          > > > indicating that the below
          > > > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
          > > > otherwise, please send me a
          > > > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
          > > >
          > > > Richard
          > > > rlake@...
          > > >
          > > > ------------------
          > > >
          > > > Monday, November 29, 2004 � Last updated 3:49
          > p.m.
          > > > PT
          > > >
          > > > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
          > > > ASSOCIATED PRESS
          > > >
          > > > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral
          > argument
          > > > on medical marijuana, as
          > > > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
          > > >
          > > > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand
          > it,
          > > if
          > > > California's law
          > > > applies, then none of this homegrown or
          > > medical-use
          > > > marijuana will be on
          > > > any interstate market. And it is in the area of
          > > > something traditionally
          > > > regulated by states."
          > > >
          > > > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
          > > > Justice O'Connor, let me
          > > > first say that I think it might be a bit
          > > optimistic
          > > > to think that none of
          > > > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
          > > > California law would be
          > > > diverted into the national market for marijuana.
          > > > And, of course, the
          > > > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at
          > almost
          > > > every step of the act,
          > > > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
          > > > substances from medical to
          > > > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances
          > > under
          > > > Schedule I into the
          > > > national market."
          > > >
          > > > ---
          > > >
          > > > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful possession
          > > of
          > > > noncontraband
          > > > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge
          > to
          > > > the statutory regime. It
          > > > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in
          > > > promoting health. And I
          > > > think the clearest example of that is the fact
          > > that,
          > > > to the extent there is
          > > > anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana,
          > > it's
          > > > THC, which has been
          > > > isolated and provided in a pill form."
          > > >
          > > > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in this
          > > > record, a showing that, for
          > > > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were
          > > some
          > > > 30-odd drugs taken.
          > > > None of them worked. This was the only one that
          > > > would. . If there were to
          > > > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in
          > this
          > > > case, would there be any
          > > > defense?"
          > > >
          > > > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we
          > would
          > > > take the position, based
          > > > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis
          > case
          > > -
          > > > and, obviously,
          > > > different justices on this court read the
          > opinion
          > > > differently and had
          > > > different views on the extent to which the
          > > > medical-necessity defense was
          > > > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine the
          > > > federal government, in
          > > > that case, if it took the unlikely step of
          > > bringing
          > > > the prosecution in the
          > > > first place, would be arguing that, on the
          > > authority
          > > > of Oakland Cannabis,
          > > > the medical-necessity defense was not
          > available."
          > > >
          > > > ---
          > > >
          > > > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
          > > > chemical components in crude
          > > > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just sort
          > > of
          > > > belies any logic that
          > > > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
          > > > marijuana doesn't have much
          > > > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
          > > > understand, smoking is
          > > > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's
          > also
          > > > true of marijuana. And
          > > > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
          > > > effective delivery device for
          > > > medicine, I think, is also something that really
          > > > doesn't have any future as
          > > > medicine."
          > > >
          > > > ---
          > > >
          > > > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
          > > > women: "If you accept the
          > > > government's definition of economic, then
          > washing
          > > > dishes, today, would be
          > > > economic, and that would be within the power of
          > > > Congress to reach."
          > > >
          > > > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's
          > noneconomic
          > > > because one of these
          > > > people is a self-grower, another one is getting
          > it
          > > > from a friend for
          > > > nothing. But I don't see what reason that you
          > have
          > > > given, or any reason
          > > > that you haven't given, for us to believe that,
          > > out
          > > > of - now I'm going to
          > > > assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000
          > > potential
          > > > users - everybody is
          > > > going to get it from a friend or from plants in
          > > the
          > > > back yard. Seems to me
          > > > the sensible assumption is they're going to get
          > it
          > > > on the street. And once
          > > > they get it, under California law, it's not a
          > > crime
          > > > for them to have it and
          > > > use it. But they're going to get it in the
          > > street."
          > > >
          > > > BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive not
          > to
          > > > get it on the street,
          > > > because getting it on the street is going to
          > > subject
          > > > them to criminal
          > > > prosecution, under both California and federal
          > > law.
          > > > ... We are talking
          >
          === message truncated ===


          =====
          Thanks,

          Steve Nolin

          stevenolin.com



          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
          http://my.yahoo.com
        • Dr. Babs
          Okay, Steve. Walter s at 7:30 on Friday. We have a date . (Don t get jealous, Cheryl!) Anyone else want to meet up then, maybe have a drink and say hi to
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Okay, Steve.  Walter's at 7:30 on Friday.
            We have a "date".  (Don't get jealous, Cheryl!)
            Anyone else want to meet up then, maybe
            have a drink and say hi to the folks?
             
            Tracy

            Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:

            we could meet up at walters as i need to bring some up
            there unless someone else has. i don't get off till 7
            and cheryl is cooking steaks tonight i hear. how about
            friday night about 7:30?

            --- "Dr. Babs" wrote:

            >
            > Where can I pick some up, maybe 200?
            >
            > Tracy
            >
            >
            > --- Steven Nolin wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on
            > > green
            > > paper if anyone would like to pick some up to hand
            > > out...
            > >
            > > --- Richard Lake wrote:
            > >
            > > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
            > > > From: Richard Lake
            > > > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
            > > > arguments
            > > > To: DPFT-L@...
            > > >
            > > > I have received several requests asking if a
            > > > transcript of the court
            > > > session is available. I have yet to see a
            > complete
            > > > transcript, but the AP
            > > > put out the following yesterday.
            > > >
            > > > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
            > > > indicating that the below
            > > > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
            > > > otherwise, please send me a
            > > > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
            > > >
            > > > Richard
            > > > rlake@...
            > > >
            > > > ------------------
            > > >
            > > > Monday, November 29, 2004 � Last updated 3:49
            > p.m.
            > > > PT
            > > >
            > > > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
            > > > ASSOCIATED PRESS
            > > >
            > > > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral
            > argument
            > > > on medical marijuana, as
            > > > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
            > > >
            > > > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand
            > it,
            > > if
            > > > California's law
            > > > applies, then none of this homegrown or
            > > medical-use
            > > > marijuana will be on
            > > > any interstate market. And it is in the area of
            > > > something traditionally
            > > > regulated by states."
            > > >
            > > > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
            > > > Justice O'Connor, let me
            > > > first say that I think it might be a bit
            > > optimistic
            > > > to think that none of
            > > > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
            > > > California law would be
            > > > diverted into the national market for marijuana.
            > > > And, of course, the
            > > > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at
            > almost
            > > > every step of the act,
            > > > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
            > > > substances from medical to
            > > > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances
            > > under
            > > > Schedule I into the
            > > > national market."
            > > >
            > > > ---
            > > >
            > > > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful possession
            > > of
            > > > noncontraband
            > > > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge
            > to
            > > > the statutory regime. It
            > > > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in
            > > > promoting health. And I
            > > > think the clearest example of that is the fact
            > > that,
            > > > to the extent there is
            > > > anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana,
            > > it's
            > > > THC, which has been
            > > > isolated and provided in a pill form."
            > > >
            > > > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in this
            > > > record, a showing that, for
            > > > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were
            > > some
            > > > 30-odd drugs taken.
            > > > None of them worked. This was the only one that
            > > > would. . If there were to
            > > > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in
            > this
            > > > case, would there be any
            > > > defense?"
            > > >
            > > > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we
            > would
            > > > take the position, based
            > > > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis
            > case
            > > -
            > > > and, obviously,
            > > > different justices on this court read the
            > opinion
            > > > differently and had
            > > > different views on the extent to which the
            > > > medical-necessity defense was
            > > > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine the
            > > > federal government, in
            > > > that case, if it took the unlikely step of
            > > bringing
            > > > the prosecution in the
            > > > first place, would be arguing that, on the
            > > authority
            > > > of Oakland Cannabis,
            > > > the medical-necessity defense was not
            > available."
            > > >
            > > > ---
            > > >
            > > > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
            > > > chemical components in crude
            > > > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just sort
            > > of
            > > > belies any logic that
            > > > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
            > > > marijuana doesn't have much
            > > > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
            > > > understand, smoking is
            > > > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's
            > also
            > > > true of marijuana. And
            > > > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
            > > > effective delivery device for
            > > > medicine, I think, is also something that really
            > > > doesn't have any future as
            > > > medicine."
            > > >
            > > > ---
            > > >
            > > > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
            > > > women: "If you accept the
            > > > government's definition of economic, then
            > washing
            > > > dishes, today, would be
            > > > economic, and that would be within the power of
            > > > Congress to reach."
            > > >
            > > > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's
            > noneconomic
            > > > because one of these
            > > > people is a self-grower, another one is getting
            > it
            > > > from a friend for
            > > > nothing. But I don't see what reason that you
            > have
            > > > given, or any reason
            > > > that you haven't given, for us to believe that,
            > > out
            > > > of - now I'm going to
            > > > assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000
            > > potential
            > > > users - everybody is
            > > > going to get it from a friend or from plants in
            > > the
            > > > back yard. Seems to me
            > > > the sensible assumption is they're going to get
            > it
            > > > on the street. And once
            > > > they get it, under California law, it's not a
            > > crime
            > > > for them to have it and
            > > > use it. But they're going to get it in the
            > > street."
            > > >
            > > > BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive not
            > to
            > > > get it on the street,
            > > > because getting it on the street is going to
            > > subject
            > > > them to criminal
            > > > prosecution, under both California and federal
            > > law.
            > > > ... We are talking
            >
            === message truncated ===


            =====
            Thanks,

            Steve Nolin

            stevenolin.com



            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
            http://my.yahoo.com




            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
            Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
            Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/aQSolB/TM
            --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/houstonnorml/

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            houstonnorml-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






            Tracy Blevins, Ph.D.
            Medical Marijuana Barbie
            http://rainbeauxbarbie.blogspot.com/
            http://houston.indymedia.org/uploads/3cdp.avi
            Me giving the Beeyotch Treatment to Swift Boat
            Liar For Bush John O'Neill
            READ http://www.bartcop.com EVERY DAY

            Things haven't changed much where George W Bush comes from. Houston is a cruel, crazy town on a filthy river in East Texas with no zoning laws and a culture of sex, money and violence. It's a shabby, sprawling metropolis ruled by brazen women, crooked cops and super-rich pansexual cowboys who live by the code of the West - which can mean just about anything you need it to mean, in a pinch.

            --Hunter S. Thompson
          • Cheryl Ann Nolin
            Is anyone else printing these up and passing them out? The File for them to print up is in the file section of this club. Duane, please get with Tami since you
            Message 5 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Is anyone else printing these up and passing them out?
              The File for them to print up is in the file section
              of this club. Duane, please get with Tami since you
              two volunteered to pass them out. I spoke with her
              yesterday and she wants some of these to pass out too
              but her car is broke so she may need your help. Thanks
              :)

              If you cannot afford to print some up just bring the
              receipt and I will reimburse you. That goes for anyone
              who is willing to pass them out. Some clubs and 420
              stores will let you leave a few on the counter top.

              --- Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:

              >
              > we could meet up at walters as i need to bring some
              > up
              > there unless someone else has. i don't get off till
              > 7
              > and cheryl is cooking steaks tonight i hear. how
              > about
              > friday night about 7:30?
              >
              > --- "Dr. Babs" <scientistpolitician@...>
              > wrote:
              >
              > >
              > > Where can I pick some up, maybe 200?
              > >
              > > Tracy
              > >
              > >
              > > --- Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > >
              > > > we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on
              > > > green
              > > > paper if anyone would like to pick some up to
              > hand
              > > > out...
              > > >
              > > > --- Richard Lake <rlake@...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
              > > > > From: Richard Lake <rlake@...>
              > > > > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
              > > > > arguments
              > > > > To: DPFT-L@...
              > > > >
              > > > > I have received several requests asking if a
              > > > > transcript of the court
              > > > > session is available. I have yet to see a
              > > complete
              > > > > transcript, but the AP
              > > > > put out the following yesterday.
              > > > >
              > > > > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
              > > > > indicating that the below
              > > > > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
              > > > > otherwise, please send me a
              > > > > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
              > > > >
              > > > > Richard
              > > > > rlake@...
              > > > >
              > > > > ------------------
              > > > >
              > > > > Monday, November 29, 2004 � Last updated 3:49
              > > p.m.
              > > > > PT
              > > > >
              > > > > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
              > > > > ASSOCIATED PRESS
              > > > >
              > > > > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral
              > > argument
              > > > > on medical marijuana, as
              > > > > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
              > > > >
              > > > > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand
              > > it,
              > > > if
              > > > > California's law
              > > > > applies, then none of this homegrown or
              > > > medical-use
              > > > > marijuana will be on
              > > > > any interstate market. And it is in the area
              > of
              > > > > something traditionally
              > > > > regulated by states."
              > > > >
              > > > > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
              > > > > Justice O'Connor, let me
              > > > > first say that I think it might be a bit
              > > > optimistic
              > > > > to think that none of
              > > > > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
              > > > > California law would be
              > > > > diverted into the national market for
              > marijuana.
              > > > > And, of course, the
              > > > > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at
              > > almost
              > > > > every step of the act,
              > > > > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
              > > > > substances from medical to
              > > > > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances
              > > > under
              > > > > Schedule I into the
              > > > > national market."
              > > > >
              > > > > ---
              > > > >
              > > > > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful
              > possession
              > > > of
              > > > > noncontraband
              > > > > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge
              > > to
              > > > > the statutory regime. It
              > > > > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal
              > in
              > > > > promoting health. And I
              > > > > think the clearest example of that is the fact
              > > > that,
              > > > > to the extent there is
              > > > > anything beneficial, health-wise, in
              > marijuana,
              > > > it's
              > > > > THC, which has been
              > > > > isolated and provided in a pill form."
              > > > >
              > > > > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in
              > this
              > > > > record, a showing that, for
              > > > > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were
              > > > some
              > > > > 30-odd drugs taken.
              > > > > None of them worked. This was the only one
              > that
              > > > > would. . If there were to
              > > > > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in
              > > this
              > > > > case, would there be any
              > > > > defense?"
              > > > >
              > > > > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we
              > > would
              > > > > take the position, based
              > > > > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis
              > > case
              > > > -
              > > > > and, obviously,
              > > > > different justices on this court read the
              > > opinion
              > > > > differently and had
              > > > > different views on the extent to which the
              > > > > medical-necessity defense was
              > > > > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine
              > the
              > > > > federal government, in
              > > > > that case, if it took the unlikely step of
              > > > bringing
              > > > > the prosecution in the
              > > > > first place, would be arguing that, on the
              > > > authority
              > > > > of Oakland Cannabis,
              > > > > the medical-necessity defense was not
              > > available."
              > > > >
              > > > > ---
              > > > >
              > > > > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
              > > > > chemical components in crude
              > > > > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just
              > sort
              > > > of
              > > > > belies any logic that
              > > > > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
              > > > > marijuana doesn't have much
              > > > > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
              > > > > understand, smoking is
              > > > > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's
              > > also
              > > > > true of marijuana. And
              > > > > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
              > > > > effective delivery device for
              > > > > medicine, I think, is also something that
              > really
              > > > > doesn't have any future as
              > > > > medicine."
              > > > >
              > > > > ---
              > > > >
              > > > > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
              > > > > women: "If you accept the
              > > > > government's definition of economic, then
              > > washing
              > > > > dishes, today, would be
              > > > > economic, and that would be within the power
              > of
              > > > > Congress to reach."
              > > > >
              > > > > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's
              > > noneconomic
              > > > > because one of these
              > > > > people is a self-grower, another one is
              > getting
              > > it
              > > > > from a friend for
              > > > > nothing. But I don't see what reason that you
              > > have
              > > > > given, or any reason
              > > > > that you haven't given, for us to believe
              > that,
              > > > out
              > > > > of - now I'm going to
              > > > > assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000
              > > > potential
              > > > > users - everybody is
              > > > > going to get it from a friend or from plants
              > in
              > > > the
              > > > > back yard. Seems to me
              > > > > the sensible assumption is they're going to
              > get
              > > it
              > > > > on the street. And once
              > > > > they get it, under California law, it's not a
              > > > crime
              > > > > for them to have it and
              > > > > use it. But they're going to get it in the
              > > > street."
              > > > >
              > > > > BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive
              > not
              > > to
              > > > > get it on the street,
              > > > > because getting it on the street is going to
              > > > subject
              > > > > them to criminal
              > > > > prosecution, under both California and federal
              > > > law.
              > > > > ... We are talking
              > >
              > === message truncated ===
              >
              >
              > =====
              > Thanks,
              >
              > Steve Nolin
              >
              > stevenolin.com
              >
              >
              >
              > __________________________________
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
              > http://my.yahoo.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > --------------------~-->
              > Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion
              > Toolbar.
              > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
              >
              http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/aQSolB/TM
              >
              --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              > houstonnorml-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              =====
              Cheryl Ann Nolin



              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
              http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
            • Kevin Spring
              I m interested in helping out Houston s NORML chapter. I ve wanted to step up for a while now but always said I ll do it later, but after reading Allen St.
              Message 6 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm interested in helping out Houston's NORML chapter. I've wanted to
                step up for a while now but always said I'll do it later, but after
                reading Allen St. Pierre's article in High Times, I knew it is now or
                never. When are general meetings and how could I help out?

                Thanks

                Kevin
              • Steven Nolin
                actualy i might have to dj tomorrow night after i work tomorrow during the day. i should know for sure by noonish tomorrow... dean, i m getting off at 5:30
                Message 7 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  actualy i might have to dj tomorrow night after i work
                  tomorrow during the day. i should know for sure by
                  noonish tomorrow...

                  dean, i'm getting off at 5:30 next week so i will be
                  able to run the boards for the radio show.


                  --- "Dr. Babs" <scientistpolitician@...> wrote:

                  > Okay, Steve. Walter's at 7:30 on Friday.
                  > We have a "date". (Don't get jealous, Cheryl!)
                  > Anyone else want to meet up then, maybe
                  > have a drink and say hi to the folks?
                  >
                  > Tracy
                  >
                  > Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > we could meet up at walters as i need to bring some
                  > up
                  > there unless someone else has. i don't get off till
                  > 7
                  > and cheryl is cooking steaks tonight i hear. how
                  > about
                  > friday night about 7:30?
                  >
                  > --- "Dr. Babs" wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > Where can I pick some up, maybe 200?
                  > >
                  > > Tracy
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- Steven Nolin wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >
                  > > > we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on
                  > > > green
                  > > > paper if anyone would like to pick some up to
                  > hand
                  > > > out...
                  > > >
                  > > > --- Richard Lake wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
                  > > > > From: Richard Lake
                  > > > > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
                  > > > > arguments
                  > > > > To: DPFT-L@...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I have received several requests asking if a
                  > > > > transcript of the court
                  > > > > session is available. I have yet to see a
                  > > complete
                  > > > > transcript, but the AP
                  > > > > put out the following yesterday.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
                  > > > > indicating that the below
                  > > > > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
                  > > > > otherwise, please send me a
                  > > > > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Richard
                  > > > > rlake@...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ------------------
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Monday, November 29, 2004 � Last updated 3:49
                  > > p.m.
                  > > > > PT
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
                  > > > > ASSOCIATED PRESS
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral
                  > > argument
                  > > > > on medical marijuana, as
                  > > > > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand
                  > > it,
                  > > > if
                  > > > > California's law
                  > > > > applies, then none of this homegrown or
                  > > > medical-use
                  > > > > marijuana will be on
                  > > > > any interstate market. And it is in the area
                  > of
                  > > > > something traditionally
                  > > > > regulated by states."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
                  > > > > Justice O'Connor, let me
                  > > > > first say that I think it might be a bit
                  > > > optimistic
                  > > > > to think that none of
                  > > > > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
                  > > > > California law would be
                  > > > > diverted into the national market for
                  > marijuana.
                  > > > > And, of course, the
                  > > > > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at
                  > > almost
                  > > > > every step of the act,
                  > > > > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
                  > > > > substances from medical to
                  > > > > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances
                  > > > under
                  > > > > Schedule I into the
                  > > > > national market."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ---
                  > > > >
                  > > > > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful
                  > possession
                  > > > of
                  > > > > noncontraband
                  > > > > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge
                  > > to
                  > > > > the statutory regime. It
                  > > > > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal
                  > in
                  > > > > promoting health. And I
                  > > > > think the clearest example of that is the fact
                  > > > that,
                  > > > > to the extent there is
                  > > > > anything beneficial, health-wise, in
                  > marijuana,
                  > > > it's
                  > > > > THC, which has been
                  > > > > isolated and provided in a pill form."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in
                  > this
                  > > > > record, a showing that, for
                  > > > > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were
                  > > > some
                  > > > > 30-odd drugs taken.
                  > > > > None of them worked. This was the only one
                  > that
                  > > > > would. . If there were to
                  > > > > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in
                  > > this
                  > > > > case, would there be any
                  > > > > defense?"
                  > > > >
                  > > > > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we
                  > > would
                  > > > > take the position, based
                  > > > > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis
                  > > case
                  > > > -
                  > > > > and, obviously,
                  > > > > different justices on this court read the
                  > > opinion
                  > > > > differently and had
                  > > > > different views on the extent to which the
                  > > > > medical-necessity defense was
                  > > > > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine
                  > the
                  > > > > federal government, in
                  > > > > that case, if it took the unlikely step of
                  > > > bringing
                  > > > > the prosecution in the
                  > > > > first place, would be arguing that, on the
                  > > > authority
                  > > > > of Oakland Cannabis,
                  > > > > the medical-necessity defense was not
                  > > available."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ---
                  > > > >
                  > > > > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
                  > > > > chemical components in crude
                  > > > > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just
                  > sort
                  > > > of
                  > > > > belies any logic that
                  > > > > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
                  > > > > marijuana doesn't have much
                  > > > > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
                  > > > > understand, smoking is
                  > > > > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's
                  > > also
                  > > > > true of marijuana. And
                  > > > > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
                  > > > > effective delivery device for
                  > > > > medicine, I think, is also something that
                  > really
                  > > > > doesn't have any future as
                  > > > > medicine."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ---
                  > > > >
                  > > > > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
                  > > > > women: "If you accept the
                  > > > > government's definition of economic, then
                  > > washing
                  > > > > dishes, today, would be
                  > > > > economic, and that would be within the power
                  > of
                  > > > > Congress to reach."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's
                  > > noneconomic
                  > > > > because one of these
                  > > > > people is a self-grower, another one is
                  > getting
                  >
                  === message truncated ===


                  =====
                  Thanks,

                  Steve Nolin

                  stevenolin.com



                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
                  http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                • Steven Nolin
                  usually the meetings are on the 3rd thursday of the month at golden island restaurant but it will be on the 12th this month at walter s on washington. you can
                  Message 8 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    usually the meetings are on the 3rd thursday of the
                    month at golden island restaurant but it will be on
                    the 12th this month at walter's on washington. you can
                    check the calendar in the group for all the details.

                    hope to see ya there, we can use all the help we can
                    get. don't forget to let your congress critters know
                    also. you can put in your zip from the
                    houstonnorml.org homepage and it will look them up for
                    you. we are also planning on presenting city council
                    with a proposal to make marijuana possesion the lowest
                    police priority in january so if you can make that it
                    would be great.

                    --- Kevin Spring <kspring@...> wrote:

                    >
                    > I'm interested in helping out Houston's NORML
                    > chapter. I've wanted to
                    > step up for a while now but always said I'll do it
                    > later, but after
                    > reading Allen St. Pierre's article in High Times, I
                    > knew it is now or
                    > never. When are general meetings and how could I
                    > help out?
                    >
                    > Thanks
                    >
                    > Kevin
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    =====
                    Thanks,

                    Steve Nolin

                    stevenolin.com



                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
                    http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
                  • Dean Becker
                    Okay Steve, next week is good. db ... From: Steven Nolin To: Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:38 PM
                    Message 9 of 9 , Dec 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Okay Steve, next week is good.

                      db

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Steven Nolin" <stevennolin@...>
                      To: <houstonnorml@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:38 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Houston NORML] Fwd: Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments


                      >
                      > actualy i might have to dj tomorrow night after i work
                      > tomorrow during the day. i should know for sure by
                      > noonish tomorrow...
                      >
                      > dean, i'm getting off at 5:30 next week so i will be
                      > able to run the boards for the radio show.
                      >
                      >
                      > --- "Dr. Babs" <scientistpolitician@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Okay, Steve. Walter's at 7:30 on Friday.
                      > > We have a "date". (Don't get jealous, Cheryl!)
                      > > Anyone else want to meet up then, maybe
                      > > have a drink and say hi to the folks?
                      > >
                      > > Tracy
                      > >
                      > > Steven Nolin <stevennolin@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > we could meet up at walters as i need to bring some
                      > > up
                      > > there unless someone else has. i don't get off till
                      > > 7
                      > > and cheryl is cooking steaks tonight i hear. how
                      > > about
                      > > friday night about 7:30?
                      > >
                      > > --- "Dr. Babs" wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Where can I pick some up, maybe 200?
                      > > >
                      > > > Tracy
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- Steven Nolin wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > we printed up 400 of the 12/12 event handouts on
                      > > > > green
                      > > > > paper if anyone would like to pick some up to
                      > > hand
                      > > > > out...
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- Richard Lake wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:04:49 -0500
                      > > > > > From: Richard Lake
                      > > > > > Subject: Excerpts of medical marijuana
                      > > > > > arguments
                      > > > > > To: DPFT-L@...
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > I have received several requests asking if a
                      > > > > > transcript of the court
                      > > > > > session is available. I have yet to see a
                      > > > complete
                      > > > > > transcript, but the AP
                      > > > > > put out the following yesterday.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > So far nobody has newshawked a news clipping
                      > > > > > indicating that the below
                      > > > > > actually saw print anywhere. If anybody knows
                      > > > > > otherwise, please send me a
                      > > > > > note with the name of the newspaper. Thanks!
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Richard
                      > > > > > rlake@...
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > ------------------
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Monday, November 29, 2004 · Last updated 3:49
                      > > > p.m.
                      > > > > > PT
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Excerpts of medical marijuana arguments By THE
                      > > > > > ASSOCIATED PRESS
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral
                      > > > argument
                      > > > > > on medical marijuana, as
                      > > > > > transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand
                      > > > it,
                      > > > > if
                      > > > > > California's law
                      > > > > > applies, then none of this homegrown or
                      > > > > medical-use
                      > > > > > marijuana will be on
                      > > > > > any interstate market. And it is in the area
                      > > of
                      > > > > > something traditionally
                      > > > > > regulated by states."
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well,
                      > > > > > Justice O'Connor, let me
                      > > > > > first say that I think it might be a bit
                      > > > > optimistic
                      > > > > > to think that none of
                      > > > > > the marijuana that's produced consistent with
                      > > > > > California law would be
                      > > > > > diverted into the national market for
                      > > marijuana.
                      > > > > > And, of course, the
                      > > > > > Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at
                      > > > almost
                      > > > > > every step of the act,
                      > > > > > with a concern about diversion, both of lawful
                      > > > > > substances from medical to
                      > > > > > nonmedical uses and from controlled substances
                      > > > > under
                      > > > > > Schedule I into the
                      > > > > > national market."
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > ---
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful
                      > > possession
                      > > > > of
                      > > > > > noncontraband
                      > > > > > marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge
                      > > > to
                      > > > > > the statutory regime. It
                      > > > > > would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal
                      > > in
                      > > > > > promoting health. And I
                      > > > > > think the clearest example of that is the fact
                      > > > > that,
                      > > > > > to the extent there is
                      > > > > > anything beneficial, health-wise, in
                      > > marijuana,
                      > > > > it's
                      > > > > > THC, which has been
                      > > > > > isolated and provided in a pill form."
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in
                      > > this
                      > > > > > record, a showing that, for
                      > > > > > at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were
                      > > > > some
                      > > > > > 30-odd drugs taken.
                      > > > > > None of them worked. This was the only one
                      > > that
                      > > > > > would. . If there were to
                      > > > > > be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in
                      > > > this
                      > > > > > case, would there be any
                      > > > > > defense?"
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we
                      > > > would
                      > > > > > take the position, based
                      > > > > > on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis
                      > > > case
                      > > > > -
                      > > > > > and, obviously,
                      > > > > > different justices on this court read the
                      > > > opinion
                      > > > > > differently and had
                      > > > > > different views on the extent to which the
                      > > > > > medical-necessity defense was
                      > > > > > foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine
                      > > the
                      > > > > > federal government, in
                      > > > > > that case, if it took the unlikely step of
                      > > > > bringing
                      > > > > > the prosecution in the
                      > > > > > first place, would be arguing that, on the
                      > > > > authority
                      > > > > > of Oakland Cannabis,
                      > > > > > the medical-necessity defense was not
                      > > > available."
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > ---
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different
                      > > > > > chemical components in crude
                      > > > > > marijuana that one would smoke, and it just
                      > > sort
                      > > > > of
                      > > > > > belies any logic that
                      > > > > > all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked
                      > > > > > marijuana doesn't have much
                      > > > > > of a future as medicine is, as I think people
                      > > > > > understand, smoking is
                      > > > > > harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's
                      > > > also
                      > > > > > true of marijuana. And
                      > > > > > so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an
                      > > > > > effective delivery device for
                      > > > > > medicine, I think, is also something that
                      > > really
                      > > > > > doesn't have any future as
                      > > > > > medicine."
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > ---
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California
                      > > > > > women: "If you accept the
                      > > > > > government's definition of economic, then
                      > > > washing
                      > > > > > dishes, today, would be
                      > > > > > economic, and that would be within the power
                      > > of
                      > > > > > Congress to reach."
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's
                      > > > noneconomic
                      > > > > > because one of these
                      > > > > > people is a self-grower, another one is
                      > > getting
                      > >
                      > === message truncated ===
                      >
                      >
                      > =====
                      > Thanks,
                      >
                      > Steve Nolin
                      >
                      > stevenolin.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > __________________________________
                      > Do you Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
                      > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.