Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL Announcement :: Civil & Human Rights : Government & Elections : Health & Drugs

Protest Supreme Court Decision

Protest the Suprem Court's ruling againt medical marijuana on Tuesday!
mikecorralt.jpg
Monday June 6th: Today the Supreme Court ruled against state medical marijuana laws. The decision paves the way for DEA raids on patients and their caregivers. In our own community the Wo/men's Alliance for Medicinal Marijuana faces the possibility of another raid on them and their medicine.

Show your support for WAMM and medical marijuana by coming to the clock tower downtown Tuesday June 7th at 5pm. Please wear black.

"When citizens require protection from their own government and need to cloak in secrecy acts of compassion for the sick and dying, you have found the very definition of tyranny. Acts of tyranny by the government over the people will not be tolerated by the people, not now, not ever. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."

-- Valerie Corral (WAMM Co-founder)
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

Last time I checked FEDERAL LAW supersedes STATE & LOCAL LAW. But then I just must be confused right.
 

Distribution of governmental powers

Sounds to me like you're not too familiar with the US Constitution.

Try studying it before you blab to the world, mkay?
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

Actually I am quite familiar with it. Also I am aware that MJ is on the federal list of controlled drugs schedual I wich makes MJ illegal. Iamgine that. An that level it is deemed to have no medical uses. So change that law and you have it legal.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

You know, Non-Liberal Guy, despite his anonymity and poor spelling, is really on to something. Let's just change the law. That's how a democracy works right?
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

Congress is not about to change the law any time soon. In fact, they are ratcheting up the war on drugs. There is a bill (HR 1528) that has been introduced to committees that would make it a crime punishable by a manditory minimum of 2-3 years in prison to fail to snitch on your neighbor if you had knowledge of (or if you could not prove that you did not have knowledge of) them posessing or selling drugs, if they have any persons in their house under the age of 21. Alternatively, you could face a manditory minimum of 5 years in prison for possessing with intent to sell more than 5 grams of MJ within 1000
ft of a drug treatment facility.

Fore more information check out:
www.downsizedc.org
and
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z:
 

URL for Bill text

The bill text url did not translate. I have entered the html here manually.
Click on the link below to see the text of the proposed HR 1528. HR 1528 Text
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

Federal law does not automatically "trump" state law like some media mouthpieces have suggested in their 4 second summation of the winning arguments before the Supreme Court. The constitution clearly defines the powers of the federal govt. and the powers belonging to the states. Powers NOT delineated reside with the state.

How can the federal govt. ban marijuana in 50 states? By a constitutional amendment as was done to alcohol in the 1920's.

How could the Supreme Court allow federal jurisdiction in a case where no state lines had been crossed?

I don't know. Perhaps when we read the decision we will know more. I am personally repulsed that Rehnquist and Thomas were among the judges on 'our side' while Stevens, Ginsberg, and Souter were on the wrong side.

One MPP spokesman commented that there is a $300 billion dollar crime-industry at stake. In some jurisdictions, 50% of the local DA's cases are against marijuana users. These cops, lawyers, judges, and prison workers would be out of a job if they couldn't arrest marijuana patients.

We have a heck of a fight on our hands, but civil disobedience has never been more called for.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

What exactly is standing at the clock tower going to do? "Protest" and "changing the law" are pathetic and futile. Like John Thielking wrote, "Congress is not about to change the law any time soon. In fact, they are ratcheting up the war on drugs." But why give a damn about the laws if it really is a "free country"? If "democracy" doing what Congress/the Executives/the Supreme Court tells you until they tell you otherwise, I DON'T WANT A DEMOCRACY!
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

But why give a damn about the laws if it really is a "free country"? If "democracy" [means] doing what Congress/the Executives/the Supreme Court tells you until they tell you otherwise, I DON'T WANT A DEMOCRACY!


No one is suggesting that everyone simply follow the law (or every law) until the law changes. Personally, I choose not to risk my livelyhood by partaking of MJ. Others may choose differently and I support them in their choice, though it may ultimately be a foolish one. However, that does not mean simply rolling over or giving up on democracy all together. I am willing to take smaller risks, such as helping with Free Radio or suggesting to my friends that it would be ok for them to widely distribute an e-mail (using my name and PO box as the CAN-SPAM required mailing address) that I sent to them about the Marajuana Policy Project's position on HR 1528. I think that HR 1528 will probably die in committee if enough pressure is applied. Call Sam Farr at 429-1976 for starters. Before you can reverse a trend, you need to slow it down.


The Supreme Court decision seemed to suggest that at some point in the future the people's voice would be heard in Congress (by what means? by a national referendum, the mechanism for which does not currently exist in the US?). They questioned the administration's position concerning MJ's effectiveness as a medicine, but let stand its classification as a schedule 1 controlled substance. The Supreme court sometimes takes into account popular opinion (including international opinion and the legal trends in other countires) when it makes its decisions. Apparently the Medical MJ movement is not far enough along in this process to generate a favorable decision.


Sometimes laws are changed only after the situation on the ground is radically improved from
the way the law was written, such as the progress that has been made (before the last few laws were changed) concerning gay marriage. How to get the Feds (and the local cops) to stop enforcing their own drug laws when so much money is to be made prosecuting people and building prisons is a tough question to answer. But getting people to stop being paranoid about drug users would be one place to start. For instance, I was at a forum at UCSC recently where it was suggested that the data that drug war mongers were attempting to use to show a correlation between rates of drug use and rates of delinquency (such as robbing people to support a drug habit) was unreliable at best. Working on this perception that people have and changing it for the better may be one way to go. Medical MJ already has the support of 70% of the American public. But decriminalizing MJ for personal use only has the support of 40% or so. This is partly due to the perception of who the users are. Are they percieved to be young, husky criminals likely to steal your wife's purse to support their habit, or are they percieved to be either middle class down on their luck with a case of cancer or otherwise so differently-abled that they are not seen as being a threat to anyone.

I have heard one other person suggest that democracy and freedom are responsible for all the trouble in the world and that if we would just give that up in favor of a totalitarian communist state, things would be much better. While I embrace communism as an economic model, its political decision making process (including its tendency to limit freedom of speech) leaves something to be desired. If we did not have the Gerorge W Bush (or the John Kerry equivalent) brainwashing scheme afoot which calls blatant proffiteering and exploitation of labor "democracy" (as they do in Iraq), THEN things might be a whole lot better.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

Our protest was meant to show what the cost of the war on marijuana is in our community with WAMM. It was meant to be a moment of solidarity, of rememberence of all the people we are fighting for. It was a display to people who don't really think that 155 WAMM members have died within 145 months. We want to show everyone that their lives are remembered, and that it's not worth many more lives to criminalize medicine.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

I am against all hierarchies, whether they're federalist, communist, fascist, or even democratic. Hierarchy subjects the individual and the community to the rule of a bureaucracy/party/national majority, often against their will. Nine old men/women should not be able to decide whether someone in downtown Santa Cruz is "allowed" to smoke pot or not.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

The Marajuana Policy Project has just come out with word that Congress will be voting on an amendment that would prevent the Federal Govt from spending any money to arrest medical marajuana patients in those specific states that have legalized medical marajuana. Apparently, this amendment has been attempted before, in 2004. But now it may have new momentum, since there is a backlash of public opinion building regarding the Supreme Court decision. To see what this is about visit the following links:


hinchey.kintera.org

www.kintera.org/AutoGen/SpreadWord/SpreadWord.asp

www.mpp.org/raich/

Major newspaper editorials about the Supreme Court decision:

www.mpp.org/USA/news.html
 

Jury Power or "Jury Nullification" is an Additional Local Weapon Against Drug Prohibiton War Tyranny

As partially discussed in "Medical Marijuana Provider and In-Home Caregiver on Trial in Santa Cruz" in comments on March 14 and 15, local education efforts around the powers of the jury to "Just Say No" to the Drug War is one key weapon.

Given the calcified legislature, the corrupted judiciary, the spun executive, and the tepid media, the more local and direct the power we exercise the better.

Federal trials are not held in Santa Cruz, but there are plenty of local Drug War prosecutions. If juries consistently return "not guilty" verdicts or "hang" (failure to return a unanimous verdict) because some folks on the jury realize their power to do so, we can do what Massachusetts did in the 18th century, when it took action to abolish slavery, long before the Civil War, long before the English abolished it, even long before Haiti declared its independence.

Check out jury historian Godfrey Lehman (www.seark.net/~jlove/jury_null.htm)

Lehman writes:

"...in March of 1765, Jenny Slew came before the Inferior Court of Common Pleas in Massachusetts Colony to plead for her freedom from slavery. As a mulatto, having had a white mother, she believed she was entitled to liberty. The judges refused to confront the dilemma and dismissed her appeal arbitrarily.

The following year she did a smarter thing: she
filed a civil suit against her master,
"Gentleman" John Whipple, Jr., of Ipswich,
asking for a jury trial. The jury did not take long to decide. They directed Whipple to pay her four pounds in damages and all costs, implying
thereby that Jenny was a free woman. (legal
Papers of John Adams, Vol 2, ed. L. Kinvin
Wroth & Hiller B. Zoel, Belknap Press,
Cambridge, 1965)

Between that year and 1783 some 15 or
20 black slaves made appeals to Massachusetts
civil juries. In all but one instance--an aging
slave purchased 40 years before and likely to
become a public charge--the jurors granted the
appeals flying directly in the face of long
established custom because they believed that
"they in Africa had as much right to enslave us."
They directed the white masters to pay damages
of varying amounts.

The final case was a criminal charge
brought by the Commonwealth in 1783 against
the white master, who had already been assessed
damages by two civil juries. Massachusetts'
brand new state constitution contained the
provision that" "All men are born free and
equal, and have certain natural, essential and
unalienable rights "among them being their
"lives and liberties."

Court and Commonwealth asked the jurors to answer directly the question: does this clause cover blacks as well as whites? The jurors
delivered their "interpretation". Yes, it does.
They convicted white defendant Nathaniel
Jennison by forcing him to pay additional
damages to his (now ex-slave)Quock Walker,
who was then immediately hired as a farm hand
by friendly white neighbors John and Seth
Caldwell.

The jury interpretation stood unquestioned, and with it slavery was ended in Massachusetts for all time. It was 80 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. All we know about the 200 or so jurors is that they were men and, of course, all white. Despite the courts, the jurors apparently obeyed the instructions of nature that "all men are equal and free. We are all born in the same manner, have our bones clothed with the same kind of flesh...had the same breath of life breathed into us...inhabit the same common Globe of earth...die in the same manner..." (Plea to jury by defense attorney Levi Lincoln, see Adams, op. cit.; also, The Sources of AntiSlavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848, by William M Wiecek, Cornell Univ. Press, N.Y., 1978; and In the Matter of Color: Race and the American Legal Process in the Colonial Period, by A. Leon Higginbotham, Oxford U Press, N.Y., 1978)

When the Bill of Rights was adopted
eight years later, Massachusetts was still the
only state free of this "peculiar institution". In
other northern states there were either no
recorded appeals of influence, slavery being a
"minor" issue (as in New Hampshire and Rhode
Island), or black people were prevented from
appealing to juries (New York, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey), or took their problems to court too
rarely to have a lasting effect (Connecticut,
where there were only three anti-slavery
verdicts, decades apart). Powerful slaveholders
in these states were able to stonewall abolitionist pressure to extend to blacks the right to appeal to juries, even though jury trials had otherwise been guaranteed since the foundings of the respective colonies. When the abolitionists
finally won this right for blacks in the 1840's,
slavery ended in Pennsylvania, and the other
northern states by 1848.

Even the Constitution of the United States is not secure from amendment by verdict of a trial jury. A series of Massachusetts juries in the 1850's and early 1860's voided Article IV, Sec. 2, Clause 3 (still extant in form only) which required that: "No person held to service or labour in one state... escaping into another shall...be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

While Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a leading abolitionist, felt compelled to
adhere to his oath of office to support the
Constitution, no matter how odious this
provision, and return to slavery any escaped
slaves appealing to him for liberty, juries did not bind themselves to this yoke. They defied court directives, nullified this clause and several redundant fugitive slave laws by determining fugitive slaves to be free. They also refused to allow "slave catchers" to seize the fugitives, and in some cases convicted the slave catchers on criminal charges. Juries of white men.

Driven only by conscience, what these
juries had done was to implement the universal
truth that while the Constitution controls and
restricts the government and the courts, it does
not bind the people who are sovereign and thus
may alter the Constitution when the public good
requires, as determined by them. The people are
superior to the Constitution. (The Journal of
Richard Henry Dana, Jr., ed. Robert Lucid,
Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1968; by Stanley W.
Campbell, U of No. Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
1968; American Slavers and the Federal Law,
1837-1862, by Warren S. Howard, Greenwood
Press, Westport, Connecticut,1976"
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

The House of Reps is scheduled to vote on the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment on Tuesday June 14, 2005. Call your rep Sam Farr at 831-429-1976 to indicate your support for this amendment. This amendment would bar the feds from spending money to arrest people who are using medical MJ in those states that have legalized medical MJ. Or visit www.mpp.org .
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

The medical marijuana movement would most likely get support of law enforcement if they took the loopholes out "...any condition that marijuana can provide relief..." I think all the cops agree if you are seriously ill or are on the verge of death, it's ok. I think the abuse of the loophole is what the fight is over.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

What a dreadful decision. These folks need this as a medical drug. Be ashamed folks who vote against medical use of this drug.
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

i believe the reason they arent making it legal is because it is the most commonly used illegal substance in america and theyre making too much money on the people they arrest 4 it ,i mean if you think about it why are cigaretts legal and mary j not cigaretts are full of chemicals & poisonus substances but marijuana is all natural & other than the ammount of tar goin in your lungs it is alot healthier...they did a study to find out what would happen if it was made legal in alaska they sold it in the liquor stores & almost no one bought it there they went home & grew it so the gov realized they would loose money rather than gain money .


THCpete
 

Re: Protest Supreme Court Decision

The real reason they dont want marijuana made legal is because in the 1930's industrial hemp was deliberately defined as a drug. (read Hemp Lifeline to the Future)

Around this time the Duponts, (whose industry was based on oil) wanted to destroy the industrial hemp industry in the US which was going strong for more than 125 years.

And Wm Randolph Hearst demonized marijuana in his newspapers by racist slurs against blacks and mexicans who smoked the "evil" weed.

By demonizing marijuana and deliberately confusing it with non smokable industrial hemp (minute traces of THC) the industrial hemp industry was destroyed when drug laws against marijuana were implimented.

However the ban against industrial hemp was lifted during WW ii because fiber was needed for parachutes and was unavailable when the Japanese took over the nations that grew jute and other fiber. Farmers in the US could buy a certificate to grow hemp which was revoked after the war.

So, if medical marijuana was made legal, it would remove the foundation and justification for outlawing the growing and processing of industrial hemp in the US which would create thousands of jobs, save trees (hemp can be made into paper and even lumber and beams!)

Its all about protecting the timber and oil based industries that now make products from nylon instead of fiber.
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software