-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
zogger Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:48:07 PST Health and Medicine
- A unique lawsuit is to be filed to try and get "approval" for medical marijuana. Using the "Data Quality Act", the filers will attempt to refute what they are alleging as bad medical data that the government uses to keep medical marijuana illegal. This act requires accurate science if such science is used for legal purposes.
"The the federal government, and the U.S. Department of Human Services (HHS) in particular, refute the medical benefits of marijuana and disseminate information to the public that marijuana has no medical value. The problem is that the federal government is basing its position on inaccurate and incomplete information about marijuana's medical efficacy. There exists more than enough evidence domestically and internationally to show that marijuana has benefitted countless people in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world."..more at the activist website, several links to past petitions, what is the data quality act, etc.
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
Shaka Zulu Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:55:51 PST
- Marijuana has been accused of so many sins, while
in fact it is probably the most useful plant on this planet. Every day
brings new evidence of this so it's just a matter of time before
society embraces this beautiful crop once again...
By the powers of Jah, let them see the light ;-)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
Thomas Lord ?Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:24:38 PST
- I am one of many who strongly believe that the
carefully regulated availability of marijuanna for both medical and
recreational purposes is the right way to go. Having said
that, I have two cautions for some of today's advocates.
First, technically speaking (and it may very well come to matter in practice), sanctioning the distribution of pot at the state level is a flagrant violation of federal law that has sailed easily through tests at the SCOTUS level -- it is an insurrection, unambiguously. Insurrection is itself constitutionally identified as a condition in which Habeas may be suspended and, historically identified as a condition (from the Civil War to Brown v. Board fo Education) where the executive is granted broad powers to suppress.
Second, why should that matter? What heartless bastards at the top would take potentially violent steps to deprive cancer patients or aids patients or, really, any responsible adult or truly needful patient of the right to use grass? Well, after much contemplation, I think the answer is some pretty smart "heartless" bastards. Among the serious problems with the current system of the ganja grey market: ecologically destructive abuse of federal and state park land, deaths by gunfire of threats to the supply chain, violation of national borders, the widespread consumption of an untested and unregulated medical product that (via the lungs) is injected more or less directly into the bloodstream, deprivation of equal protection under the law when comparing minority and underclass folks to privileged folks, money laundering and other forms of organized crime, too easy access to an age-inappropriate recreational drug by young people, too little clear, direct and scientifically sound public information about the drug, and on an on.
Let's please do legalize regulated smokey-smokey but... let's please do it like upstanding citizens.
(Readers should please consider supporting HR 1009 which, while not touching the drug issues, seeks to legalize industrial hemp production in the US).
-t
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
pyro9 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:41:15 PST
- Several states have already sanctioned medical
marijuanna. It would create a terrible problem if the feds
actually tried to arrest a state legislature or law enforce?ent
officials.
As long as laws allow for legal production and distribution as well as use, there will be no problems with grey/black market. The inevitable drop in price brought on by legal production will render illegal production un-economical. Most of the problems exist BECAUSE it's illegal, not because it's marijuanna.
In the case of California, they were well on their way to doing the right thing, including regulated legal production for medicinal use when the DEA interfered.
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
Thomas Lord Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:21:22 PST
- A few responses:
First, the condition of insurgency enables a very wide range of possible responses from the executive. It would be presumputuous to assume all possible effective responses will, in the calculations of the federal executive, "create a terrible problem". The current situation is, at the very least, a serious problem, for reasons I outlined. A "do nothing" approach is not equal to a "do no harm" or even obviously equal to a "minimize harm" approach. The whole situation is a tricky problem, in my view.
Second, you are simply wrong if you believe that CA's current regime has done other than encourage the ills I described as well as pump product, of uncertain pedegree, into the criminal markets -- as just about anyone who spends some time on city streets can find out for themselves.
Third, in what way can California's defying the federal government's constitutional authority be considered "the right thing?" When other states behaved similarly over other issues that relate to race-based oppression, the feds went in, with force, and today we celebrate that.
-t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
Beryllium Sphere(r) Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:44:40 PST
- This is an interesting tactic, but there's already a ruling on the record by DEA adminstrative law judge Francis Young that the current marijuana classification is "arbitrary and capricious".
it is an insurrection, unambiguously
No. States have no obligation to enact laws that duplicate federal laws. It's not like they were blocking enforcement of federal law, as happened in Little Rock when they tried to keep their schools segregated.The Supreme Court would also have ruled the other way if two more justices had realized that "interstate commerce" means commerce between states.
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
Thomas Lord Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:57:20 PST
- no obligation to enact laws that
duplicate federal law
Of course, but, they are obligated to not pass laws which contradict federal law. And they are obligated to not pass laws which, though no individual law explicitly contradicts federal law, collectively add up to a contradiction.
In California, at the state level, we have exemptions (to state law) for certain cases of recommending, providing, and consuming marijuanna for medical purposes. Innocent enough, on its own.
In Oakland, we had a city, that attempted to establish a safe supply of medical pot (the case of Ed Rosenthal). This was found to be federally illegal.
In Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley (to name a few), we have zoning boards granting licenses to dispenseries and sanctioning and protecting their operation. I don't se? any theory, in light of recent court decisions, that make this anything other than a defiant violation of federal law. SCOTUS has even ruled that, no, patients may not grow their own (because there is no reasonable assurance it will not wind up in interstate trade which properly the concern of Congress). I don't see any legal way in which this is different from a governer standing in front of a state school with the intent of blocking the admission of Black students, do you?
Meanwhile, the current regime of "unevenly applied tolerance" in law enforcement -- it is a lot easier for a poor person or a person of color to get arrested for pot than a wealthy white person -- suggests to me citizens around here are not enjoying equal protection under the law. And, once again, all of the ill consequences of the current climate that I listed above are true -- just Google around for news reports.
Oh, have I mentioned the seeming scam that is exemplified by a large number of prescription providers? The base rate for patient ID cards, often with a very dubious medical evaluation, appears to be around $200/year. It isn't hard to get street-level advice about "what to say to get your card." It isn't all that rare to find branded packaging of supposedly medical pot discarded on the street as the consequence of street trade.
This is a sick situation and, meanwhile, protected forest land is being abused, people are being killed, smuggling across international borders is common, etc. Recently, two border guards were sentenced to quite a long time in jail for an improper shooting incident in which they wounded an undisputed smuggler, who (last I heard) is also suing for damages: there is no dispute that at least some aspects of the shooting were in criminal error but, as Debra Saunders has been arguing well in the Chronicle, justice is not one of the primary attributes of this scenario from any perspective.
The whole thing is a mess and its a mess because, lets face it, the medical marijuanna movement started off in response to genuine and critical need of real patients but was quickly adopted and distorted into an intellectually dishonest and morally hypocritical effort by pot fans everywhere. This is simply not the right way for us to make our case to the nation and it is not a benign force in the world.
-t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
htc Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:06:52 PST
-
Very interesting. Were the republicans asleep at the wheel when this bill passed? Or it is actually just a toothless tiger?
I think popcorn is in order. If a government is actually held accountable to backup claims they make on the basis of science, then it will be really interesting!
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
phred14 Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:03:30 PST
- Some recent bill (Was this the one?) was calling
for accurate science to be delivered to Congress, and the President's
signing statement reserved the right for the executive branch to
review and revise any and all material before delivery.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting Junk Science in Government
-
AB3A Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:38:51 PST
- Regardless of the topic, be it marijuana or mung
beans, I think legislation of data quality is a scary road to
hell. We must leave scientists free to disagree with each
other. Mistaken data, discredited data, or inadequate data are
still neccesary means to an end. If there is honest conflicting
data, then it means we don't know what we're dealing with. But
adjusting the data to fit an agenda? No. If an agenda is
real it must use some data and ignore others. It is legitimate
to dismiss data which doesn't fit. But it is not legitimate to
remove?that data from the discussion.
-
-
-
-
