<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Supremes turn down opportunity to gut California’s medical marijuana protections</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/</link>
	<description>Marijuana Policy Project</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:11:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric Dondero</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2451</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Dondero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2451</guid>
		<description>So, let me get this straight.  It was Chief Justice Roberts who issued the ruling.  Roberts is a Bush appointee.  Bush famously said in an interview in 2000 when he ran for President that he would appoint Judges who would &quot;leave it up to the states,&quot; when it came to legalizing marijuana.  

Shouldn&#039;t Bush be getting the credit here for following through on his promise?  A, sort of, last minute hurrah! to freedom lovers nationwide.

Let&#039;s enjoy it while we can. Certainly Obama&#039;s AG Eric Holder doesn&#039;t hold out any promise of being a friend of liberty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, let me get this straight.  It was Chief Justice Roberts who issued the ruling.  Roberts is a Bush appointee.  Bush famously said in an interview in 2000 when he ran for President that he would appoint Judges who would &#8220;leave it up to the states,&#8221; when it came to legalizing marijuana.  </p>
<p>Shouldn&#8217;t Bush be getting the credit here for following through on his promise?  A, sort of, last minute hurrah! to freedom lovers nationwide.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s enjoy it while we can. Certainly Obama&#8217;s AG Eric Holder doesn&#8217;t hold out any promise of being a friend of liberty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Olsen</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2444</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Olsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2444</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s fairly obvious that marijuana no longer meets the congressionally required finding for inclusion in Schedule I of the CSA (&quot;no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States&quot;).  Last time I counted, there were 13 States that had accepted medical use of marijuana.  Perhaps marijuana had no accepted medical use in 1970 when the CSA was created, but no longer.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, the DEA is violating federal law by refusing to regulate within the confines set by Congress.

Carl Olsen
Iowans for Medical Marijuana
Post Office Box 4091
Des Moines, Iowa 50333-4091
515-288-5798
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s fairly obvious that marijuana no longer meets the congressionally required finding for inclusion in Schedule I of the CSA (&#8220;no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States&#8221;).  Last time I counted, there were 13 States that had accepted medical use of marijuana.  Perhaps marijuana had no accepted medical use in 1970 when the CSA was created, but no longer.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, the DEA is violating federal law by refusing to regulate within the confines set by Congress.</p>
<p>Carl Olsen<br />
Iowans for Medical Marijuana<br />
Post Office Box 4091<br />
Des Moines, Iowa 50333-4091<br />
515-288-5798<br />
<a href="http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RDJNLC</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2439</link>
		<dc:creator>RDJNLC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:24:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2439</guid>
		<description>Maybe the denial is because the issue has been decided.....just that no one is getting it yet. This is one of several examples:

The CSA contains no specific language stating that it was the intent of Congress to preempt state laws establishing accepted medical practice.  On the contrary, the CSA actually contains language that says Congress did not intend to occupy the field of medicine traditionally regulated by the states.  That field includes setting standards for use of drugs in that state.  21 U.S.C. § 903.  See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).

In rejecting any attempt by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA” hereafter) to define accepted state medical practice, the U.S. Supreme Court held: “The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality.  The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.”  Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 275 (2006)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe the denial is because the issue has been decided&#8230;..just that no one is getting it yet. This is one of several examples:</p>
<p>The CSA contains no specific language stating that it was the intent of Congress to preempt state laws establishing accepted medical practice.  On the contrary, the CSA actually contains language that says Congress did not intend to occupy the field of medicine traditionally regulated by the states.  That field includes setting standards for use of drugs in that state.  21 U.S.C. § 903.  See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).</p>
<p>In rejecting any attempt by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA” hereafter) to define accepted state medical practice, the U.S. Supreme Court held: “The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality.  The text and structure of the CSA show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.”  Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 275 (2006)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: theFreshScent &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Big Win for State-Level Medical Marijuana Laws</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2433</link>
		<dc:creator>theFreshScent &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Big Win for State-Level Medical Marijuana Laws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:34:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2433</guid>
		<description>[...] too pleased with this, so they took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, who officially refused to hear Garden Grove v. Superior Court of California, et al.. This means the lower court ruling stands, and over 90% of police traffic stops that result in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] too pleased with this, so they took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, who officially refused to hear Garden Grove v. Superior Court of California, et al.. This means the lower court ruling stands, and over 90% of police traffic stops that result in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Partypooper</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2432</link>
		<dc:creator>Partypooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2432</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, denial of cert is hardly a resolution of the issue.  It just means that the issue is one that the court wants to dodge for now.  The issue can come back up to them in any number of cases until they accept cert and give a ruling on the merits.  Sorry to be a party-pooper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, denial of cert is hardly a resolution of the issue.  It just means that the issue is one that the court wants to dodge for now.  The issue can come back up to them in any number of cases until they accept cert and give a ruling on the merits.  Sorry to be a party-pooper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: logan9</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2430</link>
		<dc:creator>logan9</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2430</guid>
		<description>.... about time. Don&#039;t our Federal Courts have more important issues to tend to now! Marijuana is not the problem!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;. about time. Don&#8217;t our Federal Courts have more important issues to tend to now! Marijuana is not the problem!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HappyMongol</title>
		<link>http://blog.mpp.org/uncategorized/us-supremes-turn-down-opportunity-to-gut-california%e2%80%99s-medical-marijuana-protections/12012008/comment-page-1/#comment-2427</link>
		<dc:creator>HappyMongol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mpp.org/?p=239#comment-2427</guid>
		<description>Yes, score one for the good guys !!! Nice to see some judges understand state and constitutional rights still !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, score one for the good guys !!! Nice to see some judges understand state and constitutional rights still !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
