Talk-Polywell.org

Earlier I came across an amazing statement by our highest court:

“Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.”

The Supreme Court said that in a unanimous 1925 opinion which held that the Harrison Narcotics Act could not be used to prosecute doctors who proscribe narcotics to addicts. (Previous rulings had led the DEA’s federal precursors to state that “An order purporting to be a prescription issued to an addict or habitual user of narcotics, not in the course of professional treatment but for the purpose of providing the user with narcotics sufficient to keep him comfortable by maintaining his customary use, is not a prescription within the meaning or intent of the Act: and the person filling such an order, as well as the person issuing it, may be charged with violation of the law.”)

The court added this:

Federal power is delegated, and its prescribed limits must not be transcended even though the end seems desirable.

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/04/what ... ted-power/
=======================

Well my "Constitutionalist" friends? How is Federal Drug Prohibition possible? Or is the Constitution a "living document" for you too. My take? We have Right wing Progressives and Left wing Progressives.

MSimon wrote:Earlier I came across an amazing statement by our highest court:

“Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.”

The Supreme Court said that in a unanimous 1925 opinion which held that the Harrison Narcotics Act could not be used to prosecute doctors who proscribe narcotics to addicts. The court added this:

Federal power is delegated, and its prescribed limits must not be transcended even though the end seems desirable.

=======================

Well my "Constitutionalist" friends? How is Federal Drug Prohibition possible? Or is the Constitution a "living document" for you too. My take? We have Right wing Progressives and Left wing Progressives.

Got it right and wrong all at the same time. what your refering to is The Act's applicability in prosecuting doctors who prescribe narcotics to addicts. It was successfully challenged in Linder v. United States in 1925, as Justice McReynolds ruled that the federal government has no power to regulate medical practice. This was in regards to what medicine could be used to treat what aliment . currently pot is listed with No medicinal qualities and therefore falls outside this ruling.(strangely enough a schedule I and III at the same time.) What you more likely should examine is the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which has largely superseded previous acts.

FYI The Harrison act was designed to control drug use in the black community in the early 1900s

It is difficult to see how the government can get a power it didn't have by passing a law. I was under the impression that you had to change the Constitution for that. But of course Progressive Republicans don't need no stinking Constitution.

As to "no medical use"? Well can you change facts by passing a law? Cannabis was in the US Pharmacopeia until 1942 and had been used medicinally in the world for at least 5,000 years. And in the US until 1937.

Not to mention the current evidence you can find here http://www.nih.gov/ if you enter endocannabinoid into the search engine. About 104,000 cites last I looked.

No medical use is a legal fiction. And Progressive Republicans are just as at home with government fictions as Progressive Democrats.

You do get that this will spell electoral doom for Republicans if they do not change their tune. Soon. Remember 1932.

I intend to make endocannabinoid a household word. Given my past performance it should take about a year. Maybe less. I am already one month in.

I look forward to the accident stats for Colorado for 2013. In states that pass med pot laws alcohol consumption goes down along with traffic fatalities. About 9% for the decline in fatalities. I'd expect further declines with legalization. That will be a very powerful argument come election time. If it is used.

At this point all prohibitionists have on their side is the law. And that is changing. Once it gets past the tipping point on law (and it is close) the Prohibition Party is likely to suffer electoral reverses even in the their last bastion - the House. Won't that be peachy?

And fortunately - since the Constitution is not to be respected - Gun Control here we come.