Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (21803)	7/10/2003 2:13:36 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

I am impressed with the maturation process within the press & media The sycophant "whatever you say" press attitude seems to be "wearing off". Last night, I watched NBC news present von Rumsfeld testifying that the “United States didn't declare war on Iraq because of evidence of banned weapons” ( Message 19097657 ). They then played a tape from earlier this year, where he was forcefully arguing for the war on just that basis. Then the camera went to Brokaw who was shaking his head. If this continues, Bush’s popularity numbers will erode. Unfortunately the die hards will never admit their error. In this post (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19098047 ), JLA refers to the Niger Documents as “allegedly forged” when the White House National Security Council unequivocally says simply forged. reuters.com This same kind of denial has precluded a fraction of our society from ever admitting that Viet Nam was a mistake. No mistake, so no “lessons learned”. Lessons like 1. Avoid Asian ground wars. 2. If you must go into Asia, have a quick exit strategy. 3. Under no (repeat no) circumstances, leave your troops exposed to an insurgency war of attrition. 4. Have a no nonsense accurate appraisal of the conditions on the ground before committing the troops. 5. The U.S. isn’t omnipotent. Stupidity can kill. 6. Be suspicious of ideologically driven wars. 7. Given the problems in Korea and Viet Nam, avoid any “rush” to get started. Rather, look again for any alternative. Don’t “push” when you should be thinking. 8. Asian feuds that have existed for millennia are likely to prove “intractable”. One could go on, but you understand – no acknowledged mistake (denial), no lessons learned, make the same mistakes again. Déjà vu can be very ugly. JMO lurqer

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (21803)	7/11/2003 12:40:48 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Check this out...Bush's war on medical marijuana...this is malevolent of him...and he has more important things to do...bring home our troops from a hopeless debacle that can't be won... Bush escalates marijuana war Supreme Court asked to sanction doctors who recommend pot Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, July 11, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Bush administration, pressing its campaign against state medical marijuana laws, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let federal authorities punish California doctors who recommend pot to their patients. The administration would revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who tell their patients marijuana would help them, a prerequisite for obtaining the drug under the state's voter-approved medical marijuana law. Justice Department lawyers this week asked the high court to take up the issue in its next term, which begins in October. The department is appealing a ruling by an appellate court in San Francisco that said the proposed penalties would violate the freedom of speech of both doctors and patients. If the justices agree to review the case, it would be their first look at medical marijuana since May 2001, when the court upheld the federal government's authority to close down a pot dispensary in Oakland and others in the state. The October decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco "effectively licensed physicians to treat patients with prohibited substances" and interfered with the government's authority "to enforce the law in an area vital to the public health and safety," Justice Department lawyers Mark Stern and Colette Matzzie wrote in court papers. The appeal "is a sign that this administration will do everything they can to defeat the will of the voters of California and many other states," said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer for doctors, patients and AIDS support groups who sued the federal government in 1997 over the policy, which the Clinton administration originally introduced. State laws would be moot If the Supreme Court takes the case and ultimately rules in the government's favor, Boyd said, "it would make all of the states' marijuana laws a dead letter. . . . If a physician can't recommend marijuana, then no patient can qualify" to use it under state law. The federal action was in response to California voters' 1996 approval of Proposition 215. The initiative, a trailblazer for laws in eight other states, allows seriously ill patients to use marijuana with their doctors' approval. Prop. 215 specified that the approval would take the form of a recommendation rather than a formal prescription. The federal government classifies marijuana in the same prohibited category as heroin. Contending that the drug has no medical value, the Clinton administration announced in January 1997 that doctors who recommended marijuana would lose their licenses to prescribe federally regulated narcotics. Doctors in many fields need federal licenses to remain in practice. The Clinton administration dropped the issue after a federal judge barred enforcement of the policy, but the Bush administration revived the plan and took it to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which ruled against the government in October. GIVING ADVICE RULED LEGAL In the 3-0 appellate decision, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder said federal authorities can prosecute doctors for helping patients acquire illegal drugs, but not for simply giving medical advice that might let a patient obtain marijuana. She said the federal policy clashed not only with free speech but also with the states' traditional authority over the practice of medicine. That issue is central to another case now pending before the appeals court, involving Attorney General John Ashcroft's attempt to punish doctors who prescribe lethal drugs for patients under Oregon's assisted-suicide law. The Justice Department's Supreme Court appeal argues that a physician's "recommendation" under California law is the equivalent of a prescription for illegal drugs, an action the government can forbid without violating free speech. Department lawyers said the federal policy would not penalize a doctor for merely discussing marijuana with a patient -- as long as the doctor makes it clear that the drug is illegal under federal law, that federal authorities consider it dangerous and medically useless, and that the doctor is not recommending it. 'WAR AGAINST PATIENTS' News of the administration's appeal dismayed two patients who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "I wish the government would stop this war against patients and doctors," said Keith Vines, 53, a San Francisco assistant district attorney who lost 50 pounds and nearly died from a wasting syndrome associated with AIDS. He credits medical marijuana with restoring his appetite and saving his life. "Medical marijuana is keeping me with the ability to continue treatment," said Judith Cushner, 58, director of Laurel Hill Nursery School in San Francisco, who is undergoing chemotherapy after suffering a relapse of breast cancer. The government's bid for Supreme Court intervention, she said, is "absolutely frightening." The case is Walters vs. Conant, No. 03-40. www.sfgate.com