For the person with the prescription it isn't. --- In Chihuahuas@yahoogroups.com, [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/