Documents
Some laws, legal
judgments and documents that apply to medicinal cannabis:
Popular additions:
-
Read important interpretations
and advice regarding the new CA Supreme Court Caregiver Criteria
changes on Attorney Ben
Rice's website. This is highly recommend reading. Follow his advice.
We do. (Ben is responding to this Supreme Ct.
Opinion
- PDF)
- August 2008 Attorney General
Guidelines
- Sample medical
marijuana
recommendation form
- Nation's first government
office to provide medical marijuana directly to patients established by Santa
Cruz, California City Council.
Read the ordinance
(scan quality is low)
- Santa
Cruz County growth guidelines
- Bill of Rights -- The first 10 Ammendments to U.S. Constitution (Ratified
Dec. 15, 1791)
Regarding
the US Supreme Court Ruling
Against
Compassionate Access:
On June 6th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
ruling in the Raich medical marijuana case.
In a six to three vote, the Court
supported the federal government’s right to arrest patients who grow, and use,
physician recommended marijuana or provide it without charge to other seriously
ill individuals.
While this decision does nothing to overturn California (and
other states’) own medical marijuana laws, the court did argue that, under the
“Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, “federal power over commerce is
superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of
their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be” (p. 26
Gonzales v Raich).
Despite this alarming acknowledgement that, in the
contemporary United States, the interests of commerce triumph over human needs,
the court did point to the “troubling facts of the case,” a case “made
difficult by respondents strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable
harm because, despite a Congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does
have valid therapeutic purposes” (p. 6).
The court further noted that “We acknowledge that evidence
proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for
marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the
accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I”
[Schedule I drugs are prohibited in all cases and are defined as having no
medical value] (p. 24).
The court lacked the courage to act on behalf of the sick
and dying, instead suggesting that Congress be encouraged to act: “We do note, however, the presence of another
avenue of relief… the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of
Schedule 1 drugs. But perhaps even more
important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the
voice of the voters may one day be heard in the halls of Congress” (p. 30).
|
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
AND ELEVEN OTHER STATES
HAVE
ALREADY SPOKEN.
WHEN WILL THE U.S. CONGRESS
AND SENATE START TO
LISTEN? |
| 
