Over the course of the last few weeks there have been three letters printed in the Montgomery Advertiser regarding medical marijuana.
State should join marijuana list (my letter)
Medical Purpose Well Justified (Sarah Wires)
Legalization clearly unhealthy (Frank Winkler)
In responses posted to each letter on the Montgomery Advertiser site 'renegade6' a poster there calls for the execution of terminally ill patients, other medical users and recreational users of marijuana.
What makes this fascinating is that renegade6 claims in the posts on the last letter that he is a police officer. I don't believe that to be true, although his attitude fits. If he is a cop then his call for execution of anyone for using marijuana is horrifying.
First, its bullshit that a cop can call for the outright execution of a citizen for ingesting a benign plant. If we ingesters of said plant were to call for the execution of drug cops then we would all be arrested and probably the recipient of a serious beating at the hands of police. But, this guy can call for the execution of peaceful citizens and nothing happens to him. If this is a real war then how come only one side (government aggressor) is allowed to fight and the other side (peaceful pot smokers) is criminalized if they fight back? Nay...criminalized for even thinking (conspiracy) of fighting back?
Second, you can't help but wonder, if this guy is a real cop, then how many people has he shot or brutalized over marijuana in his career? The fact that he has a badge and a gun and has been sanctioned by the government would give him countless opportunities to violate the rights of citizens. You know cops police themselves so any shooting was 'justified' as accidental, or 'suspect was threatening my safety' or the ever present and entirely over-used 'suspect tried to run over me with his car' explanations. All after an 'intense and unbiased investigation', of course. [/sarcasm]
Can it really be a war if only one side is allowed to do the shooting?
EDIT: A Google search reveals that Frank Winkler (letter author) is affiliated with SAYNO Inc. Here is the link. His name appears near the bottom of the page.
I haven't found a link for the organization SAYNO Inc. In fact, I've never heard of them before today.
Chances are Mr. Winkler gets federal funding from the government and clearly has a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal. He'd be out of work if we ended prohibition. Interesting that he didn't put his organization affiliation on this letter.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
US Supreme Court Rules State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Americans for Safe Access
For Immediate Release: *December 1, 2008
*U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal
Law */medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied
*Washington, DC* -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark
decision today in which California state courts found that its medical
marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court
decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local
police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a
medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful
seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005.
Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in
clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates
assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police
will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow
for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California,
but in all states that have adopted such laws.
"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical
marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the
contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for
Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that
represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government
will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a
law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."
California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden
Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha
showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was
subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an
order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The
police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine
and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by
California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney
General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to
possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in
"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is
an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said
ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal
government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more
consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."
Today's U.S. Supreme Court Order denying review:
Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court:
Felix Kha's return of property case: