Medical Marijuana/nebraska Football/iraq

Front 1

overview of medical marijuana

Back 1

Whether or not to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes is both a public policy issue and a contentious legal issue, especially in California. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act of 1970) marijuana use for any purpose is illegal. The federal law has not stopped a number of states from enacting medical marijuana legislation. California was one of the first. In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation. Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use.

Proposition 215 put California law in direct conflict with federal law, and litigation ensued. The key case began in January 1998 when the U.S. government sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC) in federal district court for violating the Controlled Substances Act. The government asked that the OCBC be banned from distributing cannabis to member patients. The medicinal marijuana group rebutted that it acted out of "medical necessity" on behalf of seriously ill citizens, and that such a medical necessity should stand as an exception to the law. The district court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, causing a temporary shutdown of the OCBC, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a medical necessity defense existed. The Supreme Court took the case and unanimously overturned Proposition 215 in a May 2001 decision.

The Supreme Court decision did not put an end to the California litigation. In January 2003 Ed Rosenthal, a medical marijuana advocate who grows the drug for use by the sick, was brought to trial in district court and found guilty on federal drug charges. Rosenthal's attorneys maintained that Rosenthal was legally growing the drug as "an officer of the city" under Oakland's local medical marijuana law. The judge ruled that this defense was not valid under federal law and did not allow the defense to be presented at trial. After the verdict, five jurors came forward and claimed that, had they known that Rosenthal had official sanction to provide marijuana under Oakland's medical marijuana law, they would not have found him guilty. They issued a public apology to Rosenthal and demanded that the judge grant him a new trial. Rosenthal's attorneys are reportedly considering an appeal of the district court verdict.

The opposing sides in the legalization debate have strongly held views. Legalization advocates claim that marijuana significantly lessens pain and alleviates nausea resulting from serious diseases. Anti-drug groups contend that legalizing marijuana for medical use is a smokescreen designed to enable more access to a dangerous substance.

On June 5th, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, cited ?extraordinary circumstances? in Rosenthal?s trial, including the statements of the jurors that he had not received a fair trial. The judge sentenced Rosenthal to just one day in jail. He then waived the sentence for time already served after Rosenthal's arrest last year.

Whether Judge Breyer's ruling will have an impact on federal policy is unclear. Opponents of medical marijuana claim that federal law clearly has precedent in drug cases, while some states rights and medical marijuana advocates have challenged the supremacy of federal law. As a result of the Rosenthal case, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced a bill in the House, HR 2233 , that would force the federal government to recognize state laws on medical use of marijuana. U.S. Reps. Sam Farr (D-Carmel) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) have also proposed a bill, ?The Truth in Trials Act? or HR 1717 IH, which would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act to allow state laws relating to medicinal marijuana to be raised in federal court cases.

Front 2

information

Back 2

The assertion that all medical marijuana is headed for seriously ill patients is misleading. Statistics from the California Branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) shows that a survey of Californians reports the top three reported uses of medicinal marijuana:
40% Chronic Pain
22% AIDS-Related
15% Mood Disorders
(23% All other categories)

In California there is no state regulation or standard of the cultivation and/or distribution medical marijuana. California leaves the establishment of any guidelines to local jurisdictions, which can widely vary. For example, Marin County allows up to six mature plants, and/or a half-pound dried marijuana. It's neighbor, Sonoma County permits possession of three pounds of marijuana, and allows cultivation up to 99 plants, and physicians may recommend more for "exceptional patients."


Local and state law enforcement counterparts cannot distinguish between illegal marijuana grows and grows that qualify as medical exemptions. Many self-designated medical marijuana growers are, in fact, growing marijuana for illegal, "recreational" use.


Elected law enforcement officials, i.e. Sheriffs and District Attorneys in California have been targeted by the "marijuana lobby." Political action by groups such as NORML have endorsed and supported candidates favorable to medical marijuana. NORML tracks local elections and takes credit for the defeats of anti-marijuana candidates. Last year the DEA arrested a major marijuana trafficker in Humboldt County who was an undeclared candidate for sheriff.


The DEA and its local and state counterparts routinely report that large-scale drug traffickers hide behind and invoke Proposition 215, even when there is no evidence of any medical claim. In fact, many large-scale marijuana cultivators and traffickers escape state prosecution because of bogus medical marijuana claims. Prosecutors are reluctant to charge these individuals because of the state of confusion that exists in California. Therefore, high-level traffickers posing as "care givers" are able to sell illegal drugs with impunity.


The California NORML website lists federal defendants for the largest indoor marijuana cultivation operation in the U.S., which occurred in Northern California, as "green prisoners." While unscrupulously claiming to be "medical marijuana" defendants, in fact these two individuals were dangerous, armed fugitives believed to be responsible for drug-related murders and other violence.


DEA's San Francisco Field Division coordinates the statewide Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP). The number of plants eradicated and assets seized represent the largest totals in California history.

Front 3

improving huskers

Back 3

One of the areas Nebraska must see drastic improvement in next season is quarterback play. Head coach Bill Callahan and offensive coordinator Jay Norvell cannot run the West Coast offense effectively without consistent play from a quarterback. Over the next two weeks HuskersIllustrated.com will breakdown the play of each position on the team and talk about what to expect for the future. Here’s our outlook for the quarterback position. [more]

Ruud and Josh Bullocks names All-Big 12
by NU Sports Information

Nebraska senior linebacker Barrett Ruud has been named to the first-team All-Big 12 defense as selected by the conference coaches, the league office announced on Wednesday. Ruud leads a group of seven total Husker players recognized by the Big 12 Coaches. A 6-2, 240-pounder from Lincoln, Ruud leads the Big 12 Conference in tackles with 143 tackles, including a team-high 18 tackles for loss.[more]

Sievers and Huston named Academic All-American
by NU Sports Information

Nebraska seniors Chad Sievers and Kellen Huston were both named on Wednesday to the ESPN the Magazine Academic All-America Football Team (University Division) as selected by CoSIDA. Sievers, a native of Valley, Neb., was a first-team defensive selection, while Huston, who hails from Ankeny, Iowa, was named to the second-team defense.[

Front 4

'Alexander' Evokes Parallels to Politics

Back 4

By ANTHONY BREZNICAN


AP Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Although he lived 2,300 years ago, Alexander the Great may have something to say about current American politics. Oliver Stone's ''Alexander'' has rekindled interest and prompted a wave of books, TV documentaries and magazine articles about the young warrior-king, who conquered most of the known world by leading his armies from Greece to the Middle East and across to Asia and India.

With the big-budget movie debuting just weeks after the presidential election, Americans still fiercely divided about President Bush and his policies, and U.S. forces locked in bloody conflict in Iraq (one of Alexander's stomping grounds), Stone's ''Alexander'' almost can't help but seem like a political allegory.

Both Alexander and President Bush are the most powerful leaders of their day, raised in the shadow of dynamic fathers who also wielded worldwide influence, and defined by an ambitious and ongoing war in a foreign land that is historically difficult to occupy. Both men spent years pursuing a high-profile enemy leader who fled into the hills of the Middle East.

''The film was never made for the purposes of a correlation or to say anything about today's present state,'' said Colin Farrell, who stars in the title role. ''People say history repeats itself, well it does in different ways, shapes and forms. This was kind of a freaky coincidence that our story takes place exactly where all the madness we're all talking about takes place now.''

''Alexander'' can be viewed either as a support for or an argument against the current administration - and the interpretation could vary from Blue State voter to Red State voter.

''I think it depends on what your political slant is and what you want to do.... (Stone) made a film that is very open-minded, laying things out there that are both good and bad,'' said Angelina Jolie, who co-stars as Alexander's mother, Olympias.

Jolie, an active follower of foreign affairs as a U.N. goodwill ambassador, said she's happy ''if (the movie) raises questions and gets people talking and gets people looking at how we approach entering other cultures, what we do against them, what we do when we don't understand them.''

Up for debate is this: Has Bush followed in the footsteps or missteps of Alexander?

Stone acknowledged the coincidences, but since he started developing the project in 1989 he said it's obvious he didn't have President Bush in mind as a point of reference.

According to Farrell, the filmmaker, who previously stirred political emotions with ''Platoon,'' ''JFK,'' ''Nixon'' and ''Born on the Fourth of July,'' is ''always intrigued by greatness, by people who make a difference, people who left their mark on the world, people who have something to say about how life is lived and how times are either a-changing or not a-changing.''

Alexander has intrigued Stone since boyhood.

''He's a dashing-warrior king who had a vision of compassion, generosity of spirit and peace,'' Stone said. ''He was not a needless killer, he was not a butcher. At times he did massacre, but these were hard times. He did so with a purpose, with a reason. He did not have the Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun mentality. He was a builder, and in his wake he left a Hellenic empire. There was a boom in the Mediterranean, and Iran, there was a sense of growth in the world, a spurt of learning, exemplified by the library at Alexandria,'' a cultural wonder of the ancient world.

Although he didn't intend ''Alexander'' as political commentary, even Stone agrees that people will see parallels.

''I started this thing before all this nightmare came down, this morass,'' Stone said of the Iraq war. ''It's ironic, and I think there is a coincidence that's far beyond my understanding, but I would certainly not limit this to the current situation. This is an older situation, East vs. West. This is pre-Muslim, and there was always a conflict between Persian and Greek.

''Alexander was beautiful because he saw beyond that conflict into a synthesis,'' Stone added. ''I'm not so sure our present administration does. It's great that they say, `Democracy, blah, blah, blah,' but you have to modify democracy to the local customs.''

Even though the world has changed dozens of times over since Alexander's days - which predated Jesus Christ and Mohammed - lessons in ancient history remain for modern people.

''And what is the lesson?'' Stone asked. ''Alexander brought the Hellenic way which is, let's say, more freedom for the individual. He abided by the customs of, unlike our administration, of leaving the (opposing) armies intact and used the armies. He always needed more men.''

After Saddam Hussein was toppled, the United States disbanded the Iraqi army instead of incorporating those not loyal to Saddam as a police force, a move criticized as making it more difficult to fight anti-U.S. guerrillas.

''(Alexander) was always inclusive, and we were exactly the opposite when we went into Iraq. We were totally exclusive. ... You could argue the policy was malformed from the beginning, misintended.''

Stone said he considers that an error in strategy and has no interest in bashing the president.

''I would not put Bush down. We have to move on,'' Stone said. ''The election happened, and there's no point in crying over it. It's a fresh slate for me, personally. I look at him fresh. People change. ...

''Often second-term presidents do become better presidents. They're a little bit wiser and they don't have to run so hard to get elected. So things might change. You hope for that.''

If Bush manages to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into secure, democratic states; if he can negotiate with Iran to disband its nuclear weapons program and calm Islamic radicalism; if he continues to work peacefully with Russia, which has its own historic interests in the region ... Stone says the U.S. president may earn the legacy of the ancient hero of ''Alexander.''

Front 5

not real

Back 5

no info,. just needed one more card