Cancer and Marijuana

Cancer has been in the news recently. Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, announced that her fight with cancer is not over. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, also announced that his cancer has returned. These high-profile diagnoses have focused the attention of the country, both left and right, on the scourge that is cancer, which kills nearly 1,500 people in the United States each day.

The cancer trends in this country are mixed. The data shows a slight decrease in cancer deaths overall; however, the numbers also show a less positive picture. For example, lung cancer in females is on the rise, as is Melanoma of the skin and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In terms of cancer prevention, the report shows that less people are eating vegetables and more people have pesticide in their blood stream.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has equated the war on drugs with the fight against cancer. In essence, the argument of the DEA is that society should not give up against the fight against cancer even though a cure has yet to be found; therefore, society should not give up against the fight against drug use even though people still continue to use drugs. The argument assumes that cancer and drug use are the same.

On the one hand, the DEA may be on to something. As stated above, nearly 1,500 people die from cancer each day in this country. Similarly, just over 2,000 people are arrested for some kind of marijuana offense each day. That is a lot of lives ruined each and every day. On the other hand, death from cancer is not the result of volition the same way marijuana arrests are the result of choice. People do not choose to get cancer, yet people do choose to subject other people who use marijuana to the criminal justice system.

The irony of the comparison between prohibition and cancer is that, at least when it comes to marijuana, the drug may help increase the survival rates of cancer victims. It is well known that cannabis helps alleviate the symptoms associated with chemotherapy. Less well known is the fact that cannabis has anti-tumor properties. Isn’t it crazy to think that marijuana might someday cure cancer? The possibility is at least worth pursuing, especially for the thousands of Americans who need help, among them Elizabeth Edwards and Tony Snow.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

Connecting the Dots

It is necessary to “connect the dots” to fight terrorism, regardless of whether the world is “pre” or “post” 9/11. In politics it is always necessary to defend against internal and external enemies. This (security) is the end of every government, good or bad. But what of threats from the government itself? Connecting the dots in the case of George W. Bush regarding drug policy leads to one inescapable conclusion.

From behind his pulpit, George W. Bush warns about the dangers of drug use, which he says, “threatens everything—everything—that is best about our country…It transforms schools into places of violence and chaos. It makes playgrounds into crime scenes. It supports gangs here at home.”

But in a more private setting, Bush says that “you know, the truth of the matter is, a few consume most of the drugs, relatively few. The addicts are really the big drug users. I don’t know the statistics off the top of my head. I’m going to guess, maybe 15 percent of the drug users consume by far the vast majority of the drugs. They’re hooked. They can’t get off.”

Connect the dots. George W. Bush does not believe what he says about drug policy in public, so why should you?


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

Not Talking About the Urgent and Important Problems

The Framers of the United States Senate wanted to create the most deliberative body in the world. Since the 1970s, however, scholars of American politics have generally agreed that the contemporary Senate is institutionally arranged to completely avoid deliberation. This week the Senate appeared to prove the scholarship accurate, because the Senate failed to bring to the floor a vote on a resolution about the Iraq War, which is unmistakably a matter of urgent importance. If the Senate cannot even bring itself to discuss the most immediate problem facing the country, then it is unlikely senators will address our most important problem: medical marijuana prohibition.

The urgency of the Iraq War is evidenced by the mounting death and injury counts. Each day in Iraq holds an unnatural chance of violent death for both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The soldiers and the civilians both seek life more than death. The criminals, however, which is what they are (calling them terrorists or insurgents confuses the problem), seek death more than they seek life. Making the problem worse is a perceived commander of the Iraq War who refuses to act in good faith, which leaves primarily Congress as the only branch in a position to help the soldiers and the civilians. But if the Senate will not even talk about the war….

The importance of addressing the problem of medical marijuana prohibition is evidenced by the disrespect the youth here at home show towards their own society (see the recent press conference regarding the Cartoon Network's advertising snafu). The youth tend to have very low levels of trust in their government. This is probably in part due to the fact that unjust marijuana laws lead the youth to mistakenly assume that all law is unjust. Thus, the cost of not addressing the problem of prohibition is the problem of habituating the young to disobey the rule of law, i.e., the only thing that protects the blessings of liberty for today and for posterity.

A way to solve both the urgent and important problems of the day can be found by studying their beginnings. Maybe if the country held the Bush Administration accountable for hyping the threat of Saddam Hussein’s regime and pressuring Congress to vote on the force resolution during a midterm election, there would be a chance for peace. Maybe if the country remembered that the War on Drugs started as Jim Crow racism, then there would be a chance for peace. Just like alcohol prohibition created organized crime, so too does the War on Drugs. Before it was Al Capone, today it is Osama Bin Laden. The way we got rid of the likes of Capone was to remove his profit margin. We need to do the same thing today.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004).

George W. Bush and Marijuana

Since his appointment by the United States Supreme Court to the office of the President of the United States, George W. Bush has talked expressly about “marijuana” at approximately eleven different events. Bush actually uttered the word “marijuana” thirteen times during his remarks at these events; though his substantive concerns about the plant known to science as “Cannabis sativa, L.” relates to only three concrete subjects: (1) the “use” and/or “abuse” of marijuana, (2) “marijuana busts,” and (3) Canada.

Before September 11, 2001, Bush did not speak the word “marijuana” at all. On October 24, 2001, Bush issued Proclamation 7489, “National Red Ribbon Week for a Drug-Free America,” for the purpose of claiming “progress in the ongoing war against substance abuse.” Bush took advantage of the opportunity to note that “we must clearly communicate to America’s youth that drug and alcohol abuse is dangerous and harmful to both their health and their future.”

The ability to “clearly communicate” took a hit on December 14, 2001, when Bush signed legislation to reauthorize funding for the “Drug-Free Communities Programs.” Instead of warning children about the dangers of “drug abuse,” which any reasonable person would expect Bush to do at this event, Bush instead turned his focus to “drug use,” which he sees as a threat to “everything—everything—that is best about our country.” The problem for Bush is that “drug use” in his eyes “breaks the bonds between parents and children. It turns productive citizens into addicts. It transforms schools into places of violence and chaos. It makes playgrounds into crime scenes.” A reasonable person could see how such scary things could be caused by “drug abuse,” but it is less apparent that “drug use” is just as bad as “drug abuse.”

At any rate, this nuance has never come up since during the Bush presidency. What has come up, however, is the combined efforts of the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, and the National Guard in performing “marijuana busts.” On January 25, 2002, Bush praised an admiral of the Coast Guard who reported “one of the largest marijuana busts in history just the other day—right off the east coast.” A few years later on November 28, 2005, Bush praised border agents in Tucson, Arizona for, among other things, capturing “a half-million pounds of marijuana.” Bush said of their efforts, “I appreciate it very much.” On August 3 and 5, 2006, respectively, Bush praised the National Guard for its “support” of a seizure of “more than 4,200 pounds of marijuana that was hidden in a tractor-trailer.”

Strange as it may sound, the most vexing problem for Bush regarding cannabis—the one that has taken up most of his rhetorical time—is not “drug use” or “drug busts,” but rather Canada. That northern neighbor has gained Bush’s attention every mid-September since 2003, because, as Bush clarified on January 30, 2003: “Although the United States enjoys an excellent level of bilateral cooperation with Canada, the United States Government is concerned that Canada is a primary source of pseudoephedrine and an increasing source of high potency marijuana, which are exported to the United States.” In mid-September 2003, Bush said he was worried about the “widespread Canadian cultivation of high-potency marijuana, significant amounts of which are smuggled into the United States from Canada.”

In mid-September 2004, Bush remained “concerned about the substantial flow of illicit drugs from Canada.” But, it should be noted, Bush also said: “I commend Canada for its successful efforts to curb the diversion of precursor chemicals used in methamphetamine production [i.e., pseudoephedrine].” While Bush was pleased with the crackdown on cold medicine, he expressed his hope that Canada would do more “to address the increase in the smuggling of Canadian-produced marijuana into the United States.” Bush was “concerned the lack of significant judicial sanctions against marijuana producers is resulting in greater involvement in the burgeoning marijuana industry by organized criminal groups.”

At a news conference on November 30, 2004 with Canadian Prime Minister Martin, a reporter asked Bush: “how do you think Canada decriminalizing marijuana would affect the border?” This question generated laughter from the audience. It is unclear whether Bush laughed, too. He did say, however, that decriminalization in Canada “will probably affect those who use marijuana a lot more than it will affect the border.” When later pressed on the point, Bush said simply: “I don’t have a comment on what you’re doing internally about that.” To which Prime Minister Martin said to Bush: “I just like doing press conferences with you. You get all the questions.”

On September 14, 2005, Bush again complained to Canada: “Large scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown marijuana remains a serious concern.” A year and a day later, on September 15, 2006, Bush reiterated that the “principal drug concern was the continuing large-scale production of high-potency, indoor-grown marijuana for export to the United States.” But, Bush also praised Canada for its “continued” effort “to effectively curb the diversion of precursor chemicals that are required for methamphetamine production to feed U.S. illegal markets.”

It is odd that the above are the only express references to “marijuana” by Bush. It is odd because Bush himself has used marijuana, and it is hypocritical to glory in the punishment of others for actions that the punisher himself has done. It is odd because in the beginning of his term, on February 7, 2001, Bush promised “an administration that will fight for fair, just law in the country.” But it seems unfair and unjust to criminalize people who use marijuana for private or medical purposes. Mostly, it is odd because, as Bush made clear during his 2007 State of Union Address, “drug use” is a decision for doctors and patients, not bureaucrats: “And in all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.” It would be nice if Bush would remember this observation when it comes to medical marijuana.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Nancy Pelosi and Medical Marijuana

On January 4, 2007, the representative of California’s 8th District, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, was elected Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Mimicking Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100 days” strategy to mark the beginning of the paradigm shift that was the New Deal, Pelosi has undertaken the first “100 hours” of the 110th Congress to, in her words, “[P]ass the elements of our ‘Six for ‘06’ agenda to meet the everyday needs of all Americans.” Medical marijuana does not make the list expressly, which is reserved for the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, minimum wage, stem-cell research, prescription drugs, student loans, and “Big Oil,” respectively.

Those willing to search Pelosi’s website will find that she has issued nine separate public statements in support of medical marijuana over the years. On June 4, 1997, Pelosi spoke about her co-sponsorship of a bill that would recognize the legitimacy of marijuana as medicine in the eyes of the federal government. On both March 24 and September 15, 1998, she respectively repeated her support of this bill. In 1999, Pelosi made three statements in favor of medical marijuana. In 2001, Pelosi offered her support for the Hinchey amendment, which would prevent the Drug Enforcement Administration from spending money investigating or prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers in the States that have medical marijuana laws. On July 8, 2004, Pelosi reasserted her support for the medical use of marijuana, and she recommitted herself to that idea on June 15, 2005.

Those willing to search stories from California media sources for “Pelosi” and “medical marijuana” will find that on October 29, 1996, the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed both Nancy Pelosi and California’s Proposition 215—the first medical marijuana law in the country since prohibition, which started in 1937. On November 3, 1996, the Chronicle repeated those endorsements for its pre-election Sunday edition. Almost nine years later (ten days after the United States Supreme Court held that Congress ought to remedy the unjust nature of medical marijuana prohibition), on June 15, 2005, the Associated Press (AP) reported Pelosi’s statement opposing the 109th Congress’ efforts to block the aforementioned Hinchey amendment. On June 16, 2005, the Sacramento Bee and the Ventura Star also ran the previous day’s AP report. Otherwise, the news in California is silent about Pelosi’s statements on medical marijuana.

Why is the media in the Golden State so mute about Pelosi’s support of medical marijuana? Why haven’t the media outlets reported the rationale behind her nine compassionate statements calling for the decriminalization of medical marijuana under federal law? Is it because Pelosi herself has not much advertised or emphasized her position regarding medical marijuana? Is it possible that even this kind and caring representative is too afraid of the stigma associated with speaking out for medical marijuana reform to do anything substantive in terms of policy change? In short, is Pelosi scared to spend her newfound “political capital” on medical marijuana reform?

It is interesting to note that Pelosi’s “Six for ‘06” agenda does not mention the word “marijuana.” In fact, the term is expressly absent from her homepage. However, there are within four of these six important issues places for debate about medical marijuana. First, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations do not include the decriminalization of medical marijuana, but they should—any end, even an incremental one, to the policy of prohibition disrupts a source of terrorist funding. For this reason alone Pelosi should end federal medical marijuana prohibition. Maybe it will help stabilize Afghanistan by making corruption less profitable. Second, stem-cell research is designed to end suffering due to debilitating illnesses; however, marijuana research, with its potential in anti-tumor and anti-Alzheimer’s applications, shows as much or more promise than stem-cells in this regard. Plus, the benefits of marijuana can be actualized today; it is not just a promise of future research. Third, the cost of prescription drugs is outrageous, and a viable alternative for some people may be a (nearly) cost-free alternative, i.e., homegrown medical marijuana. Physicians should at least have the choice to recommend it to patients. Finally, “Big Oil” is troubling, but if the Congress is going to seriously try to replace it with “Renewable Energy,” then Pelosi ought to take a look at the only plant on the planet with significant potential for fuel, fabric, paper, and other industrial uses (none of which contribute to global warming).

The American People are tired of politicians who seek to aggrandize their own power and/or prevent progress at the expense of the common good. In general, it is good to be moderate, and it is good for change to come incrementally. But, the solution to major errors must itself be major. The 75th Congress criminalized the medical use of marijuana in 1937 on the basis of racial animus and without deliberation. We, as a country, have paid a heavy price for that mistake: the corruption and violence associated with prohibition (think of Al Capone). Now is the time for a new direction away from that past. Speaker Pelosi, now is the time to speak up for what you know to be right.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Why the FDA’s Position on Marijuana is Lickspittle

The United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) takes a position regarding the medical use of cannabis that amounts to illogical, stupid, no-good lickspittle. The FDA’s position when it comes to medical marijuana is that, due to a lack of “clinical data,” the plant, Cannabis sativa, L., is not “effective or safe in treating chronic, painful conditions.”

The FDA takes this position despite the conclusion of America’s leading scientists. For example, a 1999 report from the FDA’s own scientists at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that marijuana has medical benefits even in smoked form. According to John Benson, one of the authors of the IOM report and professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska, the science or “clinical data” is “in” on marijuana as medicine: “We thought there was sufficient evidence at that time [1999] to justify the statement that it had benefits in patients for pain, for the relief of nausea and vomiting from, for example, chemotherapy for cancer, or AIDS.” Also, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, states flatly: “The fact is there are circumstances where smoked marijuana may be helpful to patients who are desperately ill.”

What, then, best explains the FDA’s position? Politics. This means, specifically, that the FDA is looking to benefit friends and harm enemies. Hint: the friends of the FDA are not the People of the United States who are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The friends of the FDA are pharmaceutical companies; like Sanofi-Aventis Pharmaceuticals (SAP).

SAP is a company that has patented a synthetic derivative of the plant Cannabis sativa, L. and made it do the opposite of what nature intended it to do. Natural cannabis causes relief. SAP’s manufactured pill causes suffering, e.g., weight-loss, nausea, anxiety, headaches, upper respiratory tract infections, depression, and psychiatric disorders. Nevertheless, the FDA is poised to approve of SAP’s unnatural, anti-marijuana pill as a weight-loss cure-all drug. Ironic how the “clinical data” does not show that the plant marijuana is safe, but does show how marijuana's synthetic opposite is dangerous (and the plant is outlawed while the pills are welcomed).

The FDA’s politics might make sense in totalitarian regimes or dictatorships, but it makes no sense in the United States of America. More accurately, close ties with the pharmaceutical industry have trumped any and all sense of common sense by the FDA when it comes to marijuana. The people who run SAP cannot patent a plant like Cannabis sativa, L., so they patent its synthetic antidote instead. Because there is no money in medical marijuana, the FDA does not recognize it—they are involved in a conspiracy with the drug companies, and the goal is to prevent people from growing a less-regulated, inexpensive plant instead of buying more regulated, costly pills.

The bottom-line is that the FDA supports the likes of the executives at SAP who make collectively (per year) $35,314,708.00 legally overseeing the production of pills. Meanwhile, the FDA works to undermine those individuals who make pennies in comparison compassionately providing marijuana flowers to the sick and dying. The worst infraction of decency in this whole story, however, is that the person who ultimately leads the FDA used to “smoke pot” for fun, but doesn’t want to admit it due to a fear of "sending the wrong message" to the kids. That is lickspittle.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Weeds: Sick Entertainment?

At the end of 2004, Showtime announced that the 2005 mid-season programming for its pay-per-view cable channel would start to include a “quintessentially premium” show called “Weeds.” This (then new) show was hyped as revealing "the dirty little secrets that lie behind the pristine lawns and shiny closed doors of homes in the fictional town of Agrestic, California."

The plot of Weeds revolves around a suburban widow who sells marijuana to support her two children. The production company envisions the show as having a kind of “edge that audiences are clamoring for.” As of today, Weeds is still on the air, and Showtime viewers are regularly tuning in to watch the adventures of the entrepreneurial non-hero/non-villain protagonist, Nancy Botwin, played by Mary-Louise Parker.

The creator of Weeds, Jenji Kohan, said the idea for the program came from “shows with those kinds of anti-heroes who were deeply flawed.” To research how to write such a show of her own, Kohan went “looking for some sort of criminal activity…[and] around this time in California, a medical marijuana initiative had just been passed and a lot of people were talking about it…[Kohan] found it amazing how everyone either had a stoner in their family or they themselves were the stoner in their family and had stories to tell about their dealers. Everything else came out of that, really, and Weeds was a one-line pitch to the network: ‘Suburban widow, pot-dealing mom.’”

Because Kohan believes that medical marijuana is a kind of “criminal activity” performed by the “stoner” (whom “everyone” knows) and their “deeply flawed…dealers,” Kohan “in no way” wants “to become a spokesperson for the marijuana community.” Instead, Kohan asserts that marijuana is “just a device we use to tell our stories.” To Kohan, Weeds on Showtime is about “the freedom to say what we want.” But, as Kohan observes, such freedom comes with a price: “We sacrifice some of the money we’d make working for the commercial networks…I don’t have a swimming pool.”

Kohan may be (maybe) sacrificing money—or, at least, a swimming pool—by having created Weeds for Showtime; however, Kohan’s “freedom” to “use” the medicine of approximately 300,000 Californians has not appeared to detract from the bottom-line of Showtime’s parent company, CBS Corp. In 2005, CBS Corp reported a gross profit of $14,536,400. This corporation—whose holdings include (but are not limited to) entertainment giants like Showtime, Aaron Spelling Productions, inc., B.E.T., C.B.S., Country Music Television, inc., Infinity, M.T.V., Nickelodeon, Paramount, United, U.P.N., V.H.1., and Viacom—manages to make enough money to pay its C.E.O. an annual salary of $22, 824,272; its C.F.O., Treasurer, Secretary, and an Executive Vice President an annual salary of $6,382,294; its counsel and two other Executive Vice Presidents an annual salary of $2,922,022; and its controller, counsel, two other Executive Vice Presidents, and a Division Officer an annual salary of $2,242,322. Additionally, the eleven directors of CBS Corp all make $17,351,343, respectively.

Check the math; that’s $259,195,897 dolled out to 24 people who (on average) get paid $710,125.75 each day. Some of this money comes from the proceeds (or profits) from their supervision and management of Showtime’s Weeds and, as such, these figures reveal the true “dirty little secret” behind Weeds. Rather than being the kind of “edge that audiences are clamoring for,” Weeds is really the same old story—i.e., economic exploitation of the plant, Cannabis sativa, L. Ironically, those people who actually provide medical marijuana to the sick and dying are punished for making a few thousand dollars; hardly the profits yielded by Weeds.

Given the status of the law throughout most of this country—wherein the well-to-do (white) tend to avoid criminal penalties for marijuana, while the poor (non-white) tend to suffer them—those persons who profit from marijuana owe a moral debt to those who do not. This means, among other things, that Kohan is a “spokesperson” whether she wants to be or not. Maybe she should encourage CBS Corp to establish a foundation to help those who unjustly suffer the criminal justice system for the medical use of marijuana and related activities. How’s this for a “quintessentially premium” one-line pitch: poets taking responsibility for their storytelling?


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

People v. Wright

In September 2001, Huntington Beach police officers responded to a call about a person at a carwash whose backpack “reeked of marijuana.” When confronted by the officers, the owner of the backpack denied that he possessed any marijuana. After investigation, the officers discovered that the person was lying. He possessed marijuana in a small baggie on his person, and in his backpack were six other small baggies of marijuana and two large bags of marijuana. There was also an electronic scale in the backpack.

The officers arrested the person for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell and transporting marijuana. After a hearing, the trial court allowed the defendant to present a defense of medical marijuana for the charge of possession; however, for the charges of sales and transportation the court refused to allow the jury to consider a medical marijuana defense. The jury convicted the defendant, concluding that the defendant did not possess the marijuana for personal use but for sales and transportation.

The Supreme Court of California ruled that the trial court should have allowed a medical marijuana defense for the charge of transportation on the grounds that the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB420) explicitly decriminalizes medical marijuana transportation. Importantly, however, the Court left open the possibility that the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) itself contains an implied defense to a charge of marijuana transportation.

This is significant. It means that Proposition 215 does not only provide an affirmative defense in court to charges of possession or cultivation. The Court expressly stated: “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the CUA) ensures that Californians who obtain and use marijuana for specified medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to certain criminal sanctions.”

These “certain criminal sanctions” that shall not apply to qualified persons under Proposition 215 exist independent of SB420. We already know that under Proposition 215 the police need probable cause to subject a qualified person to marijuana possession or cultivation charges, and it now appears that 6-1 the Court believes an implied defense to a charge of marijuana transportation may also exist under Proposition 215. If there is an implied defense to transportation under Proposition 215, there may also be other implied defenses.

The lesson of People v. Wright is that the voters of California decriminalized medical marijuana in 1996. Qualified persons may possess, cultivate, transport, and (maybe) even do other things under California law. What they may not do, apparently, is store their medicine so as to give the impression that their cannabis is being diverted for non-medical purposes. Patients should not transport their medicine in unmarked small and big bags next to an electronic scale, and they should not lie to the police. The truth is always the best defense.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Fighting for His Life and Our Freedom: The Story of Steve Kubby

On August 20, 2006, Steven Wynn Kubby (at the 15th Annual Hempfest in Seattle, Washington) announced his bid to become the Libertarian Party’s nominee for President of the United States of America in the 2008 presidential election. On September 18, 2006, Kubby filed the necessary papers with the Federal Election Commission to make this run for the nation’s highest office official. This is not Kubby’s first foray into politics. He previously helped pioneer California’s landmark medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, in 1996. He also ran for California Governor in 1998 and sought the Libertarian Party’s nomination for Vice President in 2000.

But politics is not the only thing in Kubby’s blood; cancer lives there, too. Kubby has a rare form of adrenal cancer called malignant pheochromocytoma, which has no cure, except, apparently, marijuana. According to the late USC Medical Center's Dr. Vincent DeQuattro, Kubby is the only known person in the world to survive as long as he has with this illness, and his survival is directly attributable to the use of medical marijuana.

Kubby’s use of medical marijuana spurred him to help pass the first medical marijuana law in the country in 1996, California’s Proposition 215. This public service got Kubby busted. After a tip from an “anonymous informant,” on January 20, 1999, Kubby was arrested on charges relating to the cultivation of marijuana. While in custody, Kubby was abused and threatened with violence. He lost over 15 pounds due to his inability to medicate with marijuana.

On March 19, 1999, Kubby entered a plea of not guilty to these politically charged charges. In January 2000, Kubby filed a complaint with the California Attorney General regarding his mistreatment by police. On December 21, 2000, a jury deadlocked over the marijuana charges, but convicted Kubby of possession of peyote and psilocin. Facing three years in prison, a practical death sentence, Kubby sought asylum in Canada.

On April 16, 2002, Kubby was arrested in Canada and spent three days in jail. Kubby lost 20 pounds while incarcerated, because he was denied the use of cannabis by Canadian authorities. By September 2002, Kubby successfully fought to grow marijuana under Canada’s medical cannabis laws while he went through Canada’s appeal process. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration was pressuring Canada to extradite Kubby to Placer County to face a 120-day jail sentence.

Despite medical evidence indicating that Kubby might die without marijuana, on December 8, 2003, the Canadian government denied Kubby’s application for asylum. After exhausting his appeals, Kubby was ordered by Canada’s government to leave that country and face charges in the United States. On January 26, 2006, Kubby was arrested at a San Francisco airport and immediately jailed. After 62-days and the loss of 30 pounds, Kubby was released from custody. Kubby credits the use of synthetic marijuana as the only thing that kept him from dying while incarcerated.

To recover from this ordeal, Kubby retreated to private life. By June 21, 2006, however, the cancer in Kubby’s blood had subsided enough for the politics to boil up again. On that day Kubby wrote a letter to his supporters indicating an intention to run for County Supervisor; however, his supporters quickly replied that he could do more as the commander-in-chief. Kubby, unlike other politicians, actually listened.

Inspired by such candor, on September 1, 2006, Tom Knapp of the Rational Review wrote that the Libertarian Party nomination for president was Kubby’s to lose. On September 8, 2006, former director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML), Richard Cowan, also endorsed Kubby’s bid for president, calling the effort a matter of “life and liberty.”

Since then Kubby has been diligently campaigning and getting the attention of, among others, William Redpath, the National Chairman of the Libertarian Party. All the while, Kubby is fighting cancer; trying to stay alive. As Kubby fights for his life, he also fights for our freedom.

If you appreciate Kubby’s effort, then support his campaign. Your contribution will help Kubby say the common sense things that spin-crazy representatives of the two major parties are too afraid to acknowledge, e.g., the war on drugs is a failure. Make a donation, as Richard Cowan says, “as if your life and liberty depends upon it, because it does.” Send donations to “Kubby for President” at PO Box 50, PMB 199, Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352-0050 or contribute online at http://www.kubby.com/00-contribute.html.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Your Word is Your Bond

Legitimate medical marijuana patients have at least three things in common. First, they have a serious illness. Second, they have either an oral or written recommendation to use cannabis for medical purposes from a licensed physician. Finally, they have the character to not divert their medical marijuana for non-medical purposes. This is the trinity of elements to which a person must adhere if he or she wants to be a legitimate medical marijuana patient under the law (Proposition 215) in the State of California.

Note that the entire test of Proposition 215 rests on the assumption that seriously ill people can be trusted to control the administration of their own medicine. Legitimate medical marijuana patients cannot fake an illness to trick a doctor into making a cannabis recommendation. Doctors are not mind-readers, so they cannot tell if a person is seriously complaining of chronic pain or simply posing as a sick person at the behest of local, state, and/or federal law enforcement agents. The law assumes people will be honest with their doctors, so should law enforcement.

The law also assumes that doctors will be honest. Physicians must faithfully adhere to their Hippocratic oath to do no harm, and there is no good reason to assume that they do not. Therefore, when a doctor subject to the authority of the California Medical Board makes a recommendation that the use of marijuana will help alleviate the suffering that a patient endures due to a serious illness, the law (and law enforcement) must take such doctors at their word.

Unless local or state police officers can articulate a fact that suggests the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana by a person claiming to be a legitimate patient or caregiver is not for medical purposes, then there is no probable cause to seize property or make an arrest or citation for a marijuana offense. How can the police tell when a person claiming to be a medical marijuana patient or caregiver is a legitimate patient or caregiver? How can the police tell that a person is not diverting their medicine for non-medical purposes?

The answers are easy to see if one looks for them. If you can meet the three-pronged test of being a medical marijuana patient in the State of California, then the law says that you shall not be subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. To show your legitimacy to the police, perhaps you should simply swear to them that you are in fact a legitimate patient. Invite them to investigate your status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver on their own time, not yours. If that is not enough, then maybe you should write down the following and give it to an inquiring officer(s): “My name is _____________ and I am a legitimate medical marijuana patient/caregiver. I certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

When you willingly take a solemn pledge to adhere to the three principles behind Proposition 215, a.k.a., the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, then you have made a vow that demands respect from local and state law enforcement officials, because you will have sworn an oath to comply with the ultimate legislators of the State of California…just like the police do. “Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely with your own mouth before God” (Deuteronomy 23:23). Your word is your bond.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: Law and Order

The law enforcement lobby often argues that people who need cannabis for medical purposes “do not look sick.” Some of these advocates go so far as to assert that medical marijuana patients “do not look sick enough.” Since these critics are not doctors and medical diagnoses are not given at a glance, it is hard to understand why any reasonable person would give any credibility to such arguments. To be fair, however, the best defense for such claims is that the “non-sick” or the “non-sick enough” children will illegally access the plant for non-medical purposes. In short, some honest opponents of medical marijuana are legitimately worried about the rule of law.

This concern for law and order is not only valid, but also necessary. As The Declaration of Independence makes clear, liberty is impossible without security, so a little concern for the rule of law is fundamental. Therefore, if opponents of medical marijuana are appealing to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God when they criticize the policy, then they can be forgiven for being mistaken. For who among the human race has not erred and deserved forgiveness?

To err is human, but to repeatedly repeat the same error over and over again is insanity. It should only take a bit of consideration to convince the well-meaning medical marijuana critic that doctors ought to be allowed to recommend cannabis for medical purposes to seriously ill people who could benefit from the plant. How could a free country conceived in liberty criminalize the healing properties of a plant? Don’t individuals, born free, have a natural right to privately grow and consume a plant for medical purposes?

Of course they do, but wrongheaded critics of medical marijuana nevertheless point to the fact that the United States Supreme Court has held that medical marijuana is illegal under federal law. This is true, but this is not the whole truth. The Court also held that if, after trial, marijuana was proven to have medical value, then the federal policy of prohibition is constitutionally unsustainable. Also, the Court hinted that the substantive due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments, respectively, protects a legitimate medical marijuana patient from federal sanction. Moreover, the Court did not strike down the various State laws that recognize medical marijuana.

Law and order in this country means, among other things, federalism. Just because federal law does not recognize medical marijuana, that does not mean that the States have to do the same. What one entity may do, another may not. The local police who swear to abide by the United States Constitution swear to defend the 9th and 10th Amendments. These Amendments protect the right of States and of the People to do things like enact local medical marijuana laws as a matter of self-government. Critics of medical marijuana, if they are truly worried about law and order, ought to be worried about federalism and what their advocacy of blind federal supremacy, if successful, would do to that delicate balance established by the Framers of the Constitution.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana and Rush Limbaugh

Recently a news story came out about the possibility that medical marijuana “may prevent the progression of [Alzheimer’s] disease by preserving levels of an important neurotransmitter that allows the brain to function.” Instead of welcoming this news Rush Limbaugh, conservative talk-radio host, instead suggested that the scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in California are “a bunch of dopers” who simply “want the stuff legalized.” Limbaugh even accused the broader scientific community of being “a bunch of dopers.”

Limbaugh bases this “natural inquisitive[ness]” and not “accept[ing] things by rote” on his being “naturally suspicious of a lot of things.” He accuses science of being “political, and…care[ing] about things just as every other normal, average human being does.” Thus, when he hears that research has supported the use of cannabis for medical purposes, he automatically assumes that it must be because the studies were conducted in “California…that’s crucial here.”

Limbaugh equates science with “law enforcement,” “the military,” and “the media,” and since those “so-called infallible industries” are political, then so too is science. But science is not like law enforcement, the military, or the media. Those enterprises all involve expressly political matters, whereas science is an activity done for the purpose of understanding, not partisan gain. Politics may use science, but science has no use for politics.

Limbaugh is confusing apples with oranges. He does that often. Perhaps this is why a talk-radio study found that Limbaugh listeners were more likely to be misinformed than non-Limbaugh listeners (see C. Richard Hofstetter, David Barker, James T. Smith, Gina M. Zari, Thomas A. Ingrassia (1999) “Information, Misinformation, and Political Talk Radio” Political Research Quarterly 52: 353-369).

Limbaugh claims to have “knowledge of the media and how it is used.” This is no doubt true, which means that Limbaugh knows what he is doing by fostering stereotypes about medical marijuana—he’s making money off the suffering of others. This makes Limbaugh a mercenary, not a conservative.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana and Jerry Brown

The elections this November 7th will likely result in Jerry Brown being sworn in as California’s next Attorney General. The “top cop” is constitutionally charged with seeing that “the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.” To Dan Lungren, this meant fighting Proposition 215 in the courts to restrict its application. To Bill Lockyer, this meant/means letting local jurisdictions interpret Prop. 215 for themselves. How will Jerry Brown “see” California’s pioneering medical marijuana laws?

If his own words are any indication, then Brown will probably fall short of adequate. In a recent debate, Brown indicated that he would lobby the Federal Government and ask for cooperation regarding medical marijuana, however, he also said, “we are in a bind…Ultimately the federal law is supreme.” So, Brown, like Lockyer, will at first appeal to the Federal Government for comity, then, when the Federal Government sarcastically replies that Federal law does not recognize medical marijuana, Brown, like Lockyer, will take this reply as a loss of face—or “political capital,” or whatever—and stop working on the issue unless forced to do so, which will thereby force local jurisdictions to continue to haphazardly sort it out for themselves.

This local, case-by-case implementation of Prop. 215 has resulted in regulations that range from all-out bans to all-out welcomes, with most places leaning towards the former. Merced, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties have gone so far as to file a lawsuit against the State arguing that Federal law preempts California’s medical marijuana laws. Contrarily, Santa Cruz has petitioned the Federal Government to recognize its ability to distribute medical marijuana under the Tenth Amendment. The problem here, of course, is that not all seriously ill people live in Santa Cruz. Some of them live in Southern California.

The People of California deserve better. They deserve equal protection of the laws. To the extent Lockyer has allowed local jurisdictions to ban what is unequivocally lawful, he has failed to fulfill his duty. Sadly, it appears this unbroken trend will continue with Brown, if he is in fact elected, because, despite his assertion indicating otherwise, there is no “bind” involving medical marijuana and the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Federalism is more complex than simple hierarchy.

The job of the California Attorney General is to see that every local jurisdiction in California complies with Prop. 215. The Medical Marijuana Program Act expressly allows for many ways to achieve this goal. The fact that the Federal Government does not recognize these laws is unimportant. The “top cop” of California is supposed to make sure that local officials comply with California law, not Federal law—that’s the job of the Attorney General who works, directly, for the President of the United States, not the People of California. Lungren, Lockyer, Brown, or any other State AG can no more enforce Federal drug laws over the will of the People than they could enforce the Federal tax code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Mexican law, Canadian law, etc. So, yes, Federal law is supreme, but that only means that the States cannot interfere with Federal law; it does not mean the States must march lock-step with the bidding (any bidding) of Congress.

California’s medical marijuana laws amount to an order to local law enforcement by their “ultimate legislators” not to subject seriously ill people and/or their caregivers to criminal sanction (from any source) on the sole basis of medical marijuana possession, manufacture, and/or distribution. In other words, local law enforcement is supposed to “stand down” in the war on drugs when it comes to medical marijuana. This distinction between action (subjecting to criminal sanctions) and non-action (not subjecting to criminal sanctions) means everything in the context of Federal supremacy and California’s medical marijuana laws. Nothing less than federalism itself is at stake. Candidate Brown does not understand this; hopefully the officeholder will.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

A Veto of Common Sense

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill on September 30, 2006 that would have allowed farmers to grow hemp. The reported reason for the veto: the law enforcement lobby would get confused. Apparently, the law enforcement lobby cannot discern the difference between marijuana and hemp. This is hardly surprising given the fact that the law enforcement lobby cannot tell the difference between medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana.

The difference between medical cannabis and non-medical cannabis is the difference between night and day. On the one hand: a person possesses, cultivates, or distributes marijuana under the supervision of a licensed physician. The environment is comprised of seriously ill people. On the other hand: there are no physicians involved and there are no sick people around. Plus, the voters have not sanctioned the conduct in a free and fair election.

Clearly the distinction between medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana is clear. Amazingly, however, it is not obvious to the likes of San Diego County, San Bernardino County, Merced County, and Riverside County. These counties are as confused as the law enforcement lobby. They cannot tell the difference between medical marijuana and non-medical marijuana. Nevertheless, they still should be able to tell the difference between herb and hemp.

Indeed, the difference is the same as the difference between man and woman. Men look of a certain type; women of another. These types look by nature and are self-evident to any rational human being. Likewise, herbs are flowers whereas hemp is a fibrous stalk. The two plants look quite distinct in form. One buds, the other doesn’t. Moreover, medical marijuana patients cannot find relief from serious illness by ingesting hemp. No one gets “high” from hemp.

Despite the facts and the cost to the common good, the law enforcement lobby desires power; therefore, Governor Schwarzenegger, who shares their desire, i.e., money and “influence,” recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed farmers to grow hemp. George Washington grew hemp legally, but Californians can still only do so illegally. Why? Because the Federal Government has not recognized either medical marijuana or hemp since 1937—except when World War II demanded hemp, then they recognized hemp. But then there was money in it, now there’s more money in prohibiting it. Accordingly, lobbyists win while sick people and farmers lose.

In 1996, the voters of California wisely recognized the medical use of marijuana. Why wisely? Because medical marijuana was originally outlawed in California for racially suspect reasons. Californians didn’t like “Hindoos,” so they criminalized a plant doctors considered (and still consider) to be medicine. Thus, in 1996 the voters of California wisely returned to the policy model that existed prior to the racism of the early 1900s, i.e., the voters returned California to a policy of common sense.

One would think that a guy who is on video enjoying marijuana in a 1970s weight-room would appreciate common sense. Unfortunately, the candidate has proven to be different from the office-holder. The common sense that knows doctors should be in charge of sick people also knows that farmers are different from drug dealers. Moreover, common sense knows that the marketplace is the best arbiter of the value of hemp. Contrarily, Governor Schwarzenegger does not know these things. He and the law enforcement lobby are confused. They lack common sense. Instead of embracing it, they veto it.

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with police officers or that guy from the 1970s. The problem is demagoguery and the current narcotics lobby. They both want to profit from continuing to allow the police to try to protect people from themselves. By nature, individuals are born free; though it is necessary to give up some liberties to government for the sake of gaining security, it is not necessary or proper for the government to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or the right of farmers to plant a crop. The youth are not served when they see their government criminalizing their doctors and their farmers, not to mention their sick relatives or, most importantly, themselves.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

The Founding of Medical Marijuana Prohibition

The researchers at CQ Press refer to the beginning of federal “anti-narcotics” efforts as “patchwork” policy that “lacked consistency, unity and, at times, logic” (“Drug Abuse, 1970 legislative chronology” (1973) Congress and the nation, 1969-1972 (3) Washington: CQ Press). In fact, however, federal “anti-narcotics” efforts have “lacked…at [all] times, logic.” Then and now, the war on drugs makes no sense in the United States of America.

For example, take then: The 75th Congress criminalized medical marijuana over the objection of the American Medical Association. Why? Well, because: “The Mexican population cultivates on average two to three tons of weed annually. This the Mexicans make into cigarettes, which they sell at two for twenty-five cents, mostly to white school students” (see White, Kenneth Michael (2004) “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” PublishAmerica, p. 22).

Now, take now: The Food and Drug Administration recently ruled that smoked marijuana has no currently acceptable medical benefits. If true, then this would mean that the federal government’s own scientists do not accept their own findings, which, for scientists, would be really odd absent falsification. Did the FDA present evidence why its own scientists should be ignored when it comes to medical marijuana? In a word: No.

Thus, then and now, federal “anti-narcotics” efforts lack “logic.” For there is no reason why fear for “white school students” and an allegation against “Mexicans” constitute the basis of public policy, and, similarly, there is no reason for the FDA to ignore its own science. No way around it: The war on drugs makes no sense in the United States of America.

Why? Because it is a fact of nature that people are born free, no matter what politics tries to do about it—so rather than fight the “laws of nature and nature’s God,” prudent governments instead acknowledge them (see The Declaration of Independence). Thus, the prohibition of medical marijuana is incompatible with the founding of America, because it is incompatible with natural rights. The longer prohibition continues the greater the risk that the cause of America, and therefore the cause of the world, will disappear from Earth (see Thomas Paine, Common Sense).


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: Facts and Values

There is a lot of smoke clouding the debate about Federal medical marijuana prohibition. All sides and every viewer in this debate levy the charge of “politics,” as if there is no verifiable data involved (only passionate appeals based on some relative value). Could that be true? Is such a question even possible if there were, in fact, no facts or values? Well, despite claims to the contrary, the 1960s did not kill all the values in America, because there are in reality both facts and values on which human beings can eternally rely to figure out how to live and live well.

Take Federal medical marijuana prohibition, for example. The proponents of this policy in 1937 said that it was a fact that marijuana caused people to commit violent crimes. One puff of a joint and it was said that a person was non-deterrable, a complete social menace. They also said that because Spanish-speakers reportedly used marijuana, therefore, the plant had to be prohibited. Both of these claims are self-evidently false. Most—many, if not all—of the people who use marijuana simply do not thereby go on to commit violent crimes. As to the other claim, it should go without saying that the Declaration does not admit of social policy based on racist worldviews.

Today there are no facts to support Federal medical marijuana prohibition. The Federal Government’s own scientists in 1999 concluded that marijuana has medical value, even in smoked form. Therefore, the Federal Government’s will nowadays does not rest on facts to support medical marijuana prohibition. It now asserts values like “protecting the children,” “fighting the narco-terrorists,” and “helping people” to support medical marijuana prohibition. Similar to 1937, however—well, more precisely, exactly like 1937—the Federal Government lacks a basis to prevent people from following the advice of their doctor.

Prohibition does not protect children. It is prohibition that gives children unsafe streets where drug dealers could prey on them. It is prohibition that gives children an opportunity to assume, wrongly, that the law is something to be broken. It is prohibition that exposes children to a black market where harder drugs and other dangerous items are freely available. Our kids are hardly better off under this paradigm.

Furthermore, prohibition does not prevent narco-terrorists. In fact, it is the opposite: prohibition creates narco-terrorists. If the narco-terrorists in Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela could not sell their wares for profit, then these nations would no longer have narco-terrorists. Prohibition created Al Capone. The Twenty First Amendment of the United States Constitution killed him. The War on Drugs created narco-terrorists. Only political courage can kill them.

Unfortunately, there is a serious lack of political courage in Washington, D.C. Americans themselves, however, still have a sense of courage, which is why they can spot the lack of it in a policy like Federal medical marijuana prohibition, which threatens seriously ill people with criminal punishment for merely following the advice of their doctor. It does not take political courage to adopt a policy that only seriously ill people have an incentive to fight—in fact, it takes the opposite.

However that may be, Federal medical marijuana prohibition is hardly the way to help people. The children and everyone else are better off without the narco-terrorists and the policy that creates them. The biggest part of the War on Drugs is marijuana prohibition, and the biggest part of that is medical marijuana prohibition. This is the fact of the matter and, unfortunately for court and country, there are no values to it. Put simply: the Federal Government lacks a rational basis to criminalize the sick and dying.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: Fear

The status of public policy regarding medical marijuana reveals that for all the historical advancements of Western civilization there is still much work to do. The ancient prejudices were not eliminated wholesale when the Framers of the Constitution declared independence from despotism in 1776. Even today in the modern age of 2006 there are traits within all of us that, if given the tragic opportunity, might by chance force us to side with the likes of King George and John C. Calhoun. There is indeed much work to do.

Of course, the only work worth working for in America is liberty. Without liberty life is not worth living, which is why citizens of New Hampshire have as their slogan: Live free or die! Without liberty there is no property, for if a person is not free to enjoy the fruits of their labor, then that person is not—by definition!—free. Without liberty there is no happiness, because in order for human beings to be happy they must be able to make choices, even bad ones. Thus, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are the natural traditions of America.

Some people think the pursuit of happiness is a pursuit of pleasure, but the Framers understood the pursuit of happiness to mean a pursuit of virtue. They identified despotism as the single greatest threat to virtue. According to Montesquieu, the most referenced philosopher in The Federalist Papers, despotism is the rule of one by fear. Despots command the sovereign authority in a polity because the polity is too afraid to resist. When the polity is no longer afraid, then the polity recalls the despot and establishes a more perfect Union.

When the Framers threw off their despot and created a constitutional republic they did not envision that this great country would later become what they abhorred; thus, the Framers established a government of laws, not of men. Put differently, in the United States of America reason is sovereign, which means the mere assertion of governmental authority or will is not enough to lay claim to power. Only the governed can govern themselves, which they do by consenting to a rational authority; limited in scope and separated in power. The laws of nature and nature’s God are reasonable laws—the laws of government should be, too.

But what is the rational basis of Federal medical marijuana prohibition? Why can’t a person use marijuana for medical purposes? What business does the government have interfering with the doctor-patient relationship? How does prohibition comport with liberty? Where does a limited government of enumerated powers get the authority to criminalize people for following the advice of their doctor?

There are no satisfactory answers to these questions beyond “will to power.” In short, medical marijuana is prohibited in the United States because the 75th Congress said so and the representatives in subsequent sessions up to the current 109th Congress have not said otherwise. Similarly, the executive branch has also decided to abide by the 75th Congress’ initial decision to outlaw medical marijuana. Why? Look no further than: Because the government said so.

We the People have always been smarter than our government, thus it is not surprising that public opinion polls consistently show that about 80% of the nation is in favor of decriminalizing medical marijuana. This may be because millions of Americans have reported that they have used marijuana in the past and thus they know that there is nothing to fear from marijuana use (as contrasted with marijuana abuse). Among these delinquent masses are some notables like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. How could it be that both the common sense and private presidential endorsement of marijuana has not translated into an actual effect on the policy cycle?

The answer is familiar: fear. According to Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), most of the representatives in Congress personally agree that there is a need to end medical marijuana prohibition; however, because representatives do not want to be painted as soft-on-crime there is currently no political will, let alone political courage, to address the issue.

When fear forms the basis of public policy the existence and continuance of liberty is seriously threatened. For 69 years and counting the Federal bureaucracy has waged a war on medical marijuana. The casualties of this war are mostly American citizens—a disproportionate number of whom are non-white—which challenges the American ideal articulated so beautifully by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.

The county needs to recognize, once and for all, the wisdom of Franklin D. Roosevelt: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Put differently, paraphrasing that more modern political scientist David Letterman: What we need after 9/11 more than ever is political courage.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: Congress and the Executive

Before the politics of Washington, D.C. got a hold of medical marijuana the plant was an integral part of the American pharmacopoeia. In fact, the 75th Congress criminalized medical marijuana in 1937 over the objection of the American Medical Association. Thus began the 69-years and counting of Federal medical marijuana prohibition: arguably the worst policy in the history of American politics (related to gross social injustice domestically and internationally).

Politics is particular. For the 75th Congress, the particular problem with medical marijuana in 1937 was that “The Mexican population cultivates on average two to three tons of the weed annually. This the Mexicans make into cigarettes, which they sell at two for twenty-five cents, mostly to white school students” (see Kenneth Michael White, “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,” PublishAmerica 2004, pages 22-23, quoting the legislative history of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937).

Clearly the branch that is supposed to provide deliberative policy forgot to consider the self-evident truth that the world is by nature comprised of individuals, not groups. What Albert Einstein called “the measles of mankind” is obviously hard to cure. That sickness still pervades today, even after 52 years since the Court was supposed to have, as a matter of law, corrected the disease “groupthink” from interfering with public policy.

While Congress has stubbornly ignored polls showing 80% of public opinion in favor of medical marijuana, the other political branch has been equally obtuse. The executive branch, possessor of the—delegated, not inherent—authority to administratively reclassify marijuana, has, like Congress, put the self-interest of a powerful few over the common interest of everybody.

Perhaps the most egregious example of a president thwarting the reasoned sense of the community is Richard Nixon. In 1972, Nixon’s commission on marijuana, which he created, concluded that the total prohibition of marijuana is unjust and actually harms the youth. Why? Because prohibition fosters disrespect for the rule of law—the only thing that keeps mankind secure and, therefore, free.

Why should the people follow the rules when the representatives themselves do not follow the rules? The last two presidents have used marijuana for personal use. Yet, both have overseen an administration that has, to put it mildly, increased pressure on the medical use of marijuana. But the people are not stupid. It rankles to think how men who, as citizens, partied with marijuana without consequence can, as governors, criminally punish seriously ill people; not for partying but for following the advice of a licensed doctor. When it comes to marijuana, hypocrisy has replaced common sense.

So what to do when the government of the people, for the people, and by the people no longer represents the people? The only thing that has ever been: political participation. Vote. Write letters to representatives; local, State, and Federal. Write letters to the editor. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a political t-shirt or button. Give money to a group that advocates for sensible drug policy. Most important: talk about politics with your friends and, especially, your enemies, too.

Though the government may misuse what rightly belongs to the people, the government cannot prevent a determined people from taking back what was always theirs in the first place. Federal medical marijuana prohibition ends when the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person acts to end it. So get busy acting, please.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition and Pluto

The people “in charge” of naming the planets have recently decided to boot Pluto from the Solar System. In short, the little “planet” is just not big enough—according to the authorities on these things, it never was good enough to be included in the elementary school lessons about planets. In a sense, this circumstance of naming and re-naming is reminiscent of Federal medical marijuana prohibition.

For thousands of years human beings have known of and used parts of the plant, Cannabis sativa L., for various purposes. Among these uses is medical. In 1937, when the 75th Congress criminalized the medical use of cannabis, the reasons given were misinformed and racist. In short, prohibition proponents slandered marijuana as an ipso facto cause of violent crime and argued that because Spanish-speaking immigrants reportedly used marijuana for personal uses, therefore, the plant had to be criminalized.

Today the Federal authorities do not argue that marijuana use, by itself, causes violent crime. They simply say that it is correlated with violent crime—of course, what they leave out is the fact that drinking milk is correlated with violent crime, too. Just about every human behavior, at some level, is correlated with violent crime. But correlation does not equal causation. If one controls for socioeconomic factors—such as income, education, or occupation—any relationship between marijuana use and violent crime disappears.

Today the Federal authorities do not argue that individual patients should be “harassed” for the medical use of marijuana. They simply say that the government’s focus is on the people responsible for large quantities of marijuana traffic—of course, what they leave out is the fact that they nevertheless fight to retain the ability to threaten individual patients with criminal sanction. Isn’t the threat of criminal sanction a kind of harassment? Why in the world, in a free country, would the government want to threaten the doctor-patient relationship?

The people “in charge” of medical marijuana prohibition have obviously decided to boot truth from the debate about the drug war. In short, medical marijuana prohibition continues today simply on the basis of bureaucratic will to power. In such a paradigm there is no truth, only an endless struggle to maintain budgetary funding, by any means necessary. Just like the way scientists name planets is not based on any moral understanding of our universe—how could it?—neither is the way the Federal politicians fight the war on drugs.

Typically, then and now, the Federal government does not fix its own problems. It takes a major disaster or a long, blunt presentation of the obvious to spur the regime to self-correct—sometimes, neither is enough to forestall calamity. Statesmanship could solve this problem, but divine chance needs to strike the hearts of the powerful for that. More likely: someday the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent people will realize that medical marijuana is a priority.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: Having Your Cake and Eating It, Too

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is responsible for enforcing the nation’s Federal drug laws. Under these laws, for practical intents and purposes, when it comes to medical marijuana there is no ambiguity: Any and all forms of the plant, Cannabis sativa L., are prohibited by the Federal criminal code.

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted this to mean that the “distribution” and “manufacture” of medical marijuana has been totally prohibited by Congress. Though it is an open question whether substantive due process protects the right of an individual patient to possess cannabis for medical use, even under current Federal law, it is clear—crystal clear—that the Court thinks Congress is in control of the drug policy in the United States of America.

Common sense would indicate that a limited government of enumerated powers could not punish the private, non-commercial medical use of marijuana, since the enumeration of Federal powers via Article I, section 8, of the United States Constitution does not include “health” or “medical care” or “drugs” among them—the ability to “provide for the general welfare” does not, according to common sense, include the ability to punish people for following the advice of their doctor. Neither does it include the wholly intrastate possession of a non-commercial plant as one of Congress’ domains of authority; however, this inconvenience has not prevented a Wickered Court from terrorizing all future Courts from not finding such congressional authority there.

This tyrannical jurisprudence has provided cover for some members of Congress to blame the Court for the prohibition of medical marijuana. For example, representative Susan Davis (D-SD) has put her support of medical marijuana “on the record,” yet her only action is to “hope” for the “chance” that future “scientific” research will persuade the Court to recognize the legitimacy of medical marijuana.

If members of Congress believe drug policy is set by the courts, while the courts maintain that it is set by Congress, then what are the People supposed to do? How can future research yield promising results when the government will not even allow such research to take place? What can be done in an environment where “science” is ignored, as it was in the Food and Drug Administration’s recent claim that “smoked” marijuana has no known medical value (despite a 1999 Federal-led study that concluded exactly otherwise)?

The Court and the Congress—insofar as each has either found authority where none exists, and/or ignored authority that does in fact exist—lack common sense regarding medical marijuana, which not surprisingly has encouraged the DEA to also take an inconsistent stance on the matter. On the one hand, the DEA actively advocates for the continuance of medical marijuana prohibition, i.e., the status quo. On the other hand, the DEA also publicly promises to avoid the “harassment” of legitimate patients who use marijuana for medical purposes and recognizes the right of certain companies—and the Federal bureaucracy itself!—to possess, manufacture, and distribute marijuana or its derivatives. “We only go after the really, really big and really, really bad guys,” says the DEA. “We do not harass sick people.”

Ah, that’s so human—to try to have one’s cake and eat it, too. The DEA, like an unrestrained child, wants what it wants, i.e., its current level of funding and likely future increases of funding. However, at the same time, the DEA also wants to be good, so it cannot help but acknowledge the obvious injustice of punishing someone for using a plant to find relief from a serious illness—especially someone under the supervision of a licensed physician! Thus, the agency promises not to prosecute legitimate medical marijuana patients, yet it will not give up the power to threaten to do so.

The DEA, indeed anyone, cannot will itself to power while ignoring the truth. The fact is that the letter of the law permits the DEA to punish an individual patient. The DEA has a “policy” of not prosecuting patients, but the agency retains the right to change its mind. Why would the DEA need to threaten an action that it promises never to actually do? The answer is the reason why the Court and the Congress cannot come to terms with the problem of medical marijuana prohibition. The result is common sense, i.e., the People, have seemingly lost control over their own creation.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: Really, Really Bad Reasons

On page five of the August 14, 2006, Newsweek, The Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) lists “4 Really Bad Reasons Why Parents Don’t Talk To Their Kids About Drugs”. These four reasons are truly bad reasons, but not for the rationale articulated by PDFA.

According to PDFA, the number one “bad reason” parents do not talk to their children about drugs is: “Your kids would never do drugs.” The assumption here is that there are smug parents out there who believe that they have adequately addressed the issue of drugs with their children. Perhaps these confident parents managed, somehow, to instill good habits in their children such that they are too busy to experiment with illicit substances.

PDFA claims that it is impossible to believe that a child would not do drugs. They say: “Oh, come on. High school kids are exposed to drugs every day.” Whoa, isn’t this an argument against drug prohibition, what PDFA stands for? I mean, if “[e]ven grade school kids are at risk,” then isn’t it about time to admit the current strategy does not work? How much worse could it get? According to PDFA, right now, at this moment, there is not a single child in this entire country safe from drugs.

If you think that the number one “bad reason” was scary, then solemnly prepare yourself for the shock of number two: “It’s hypocritical [to not talk about drugs with your kids] because you did some drugs when you were a kid, and you’re okay.” I guess the argument here is that, given reason number one, every kid who is exposed to drugs abuses them, and since parents were once kids, they therefore were once drug abusers and may feel “hypocritical” telling their children to not do what they, presumably eagerly, did themselves.

To be clear, PDFA is boldly proclaiming the Bush doctrine: hypocrisy. As a young man, President George W. Bush used marijuana for fun, not for relief from a serious illness. Philosophically, one might think this would lead the Bush Administration to re-think the prohibition of marijuana; however, philosophy is not a trait of this administration. This is why PDFA, an arm of the Bush Administration, spends millions of tax dollars to propagandize and criminalize behavior its commander-in-chief is guilty of committing himself. Through their lens, “What you did back then doesn’t matter.” What matters is “staying the course,” whatever the course.

The course holds that drugs are everywhere; everywhere there are drug abusers. There is no distinction between drug use and drug abuse as far as the course is concerned. And do not kid yourself thinking that drug abuse can be stopped, just echo the mantra: “pot,” “crack,” “ecstasy,” “meth,” or “whatever you did as a kid” is bad. Don’t think; just do (as you’re told). Just say no, whether it works or not; just say it!

The number three “bad reason” parents do not talk to their kids about drugs is that “Talking to your kids doesn’t do any good.” Implicit here is the idea that the American people have given up on speech. How could PDFA assume that a parent could ever doubt that discussion with their children matters? Sure it is possible for evidence to be ignored and, in that sense, monologues are less effective than discourse—a lesson that PDFA would do well to learn—however, I doubt there is any parent in America seriously finished with any and all familial conversation.

To give PDFA some credit, this faction at least encourages would-be frustrated, muted parents to continue to strive (hope) for discussion with their children about an important topic. Of course, what PDFA gives with one hand, it takes away with the other since: “Kids whose parents get involved with them are [only] 50% less likely to do drugs.” Unresolved, naturally, is what to do with the other 50%. Probably society must write them off, given PDFA’s previous reasoning that calls for all of these kids to exist in a doomed environment laden with drugs (reason #1) and drug use, i.e., abuse (reason #2). Maybe parents are right to be skeptical here, because in such an environment, what good would discussion of the inevitable really accomplish?

PDFA flies past this problematic impasse and simply offers its last reason that parents do not talk to their kids about drugs as if there were no inconsistency in its logic. Bad reason number four: “Your kids know more about drugs than you do.” Ha! The Aristophanic problem, where children rule their parents, is ironically brought out here by PDFA. But what to do? Burn the house down? Sadly, no. Instead, PDFA suggests going to a “drug free” website to “find out what you need to know” like “how to talk to the little you-know-whats.”

Did the Bush Administration—the one so worried about children, and stem cells—just degrade the nation’s youth? Wow. According to PDFA, the nation’s children are “little you-know whats.” I can only assume that whatever PDFA means to imply with this phrase, it is not flattering to children. The Constitution’s promise to “posterity” seems lost here. Amazingly, PDFA tells people to view children with contempt. The kind of family this leads to is the Orwellian nightmare where families spy on each other and report only to the Party, not at all to themselves (they cannot be trusted).

Contrarily and in reality, children are not out of control or incapable of good judgment. The Federal government is out of control and incapable of good judgment when it comes to drugs. The facts show that prohibition does not work. History shows that prohibition does not work. Yet we “stay the course,” no matter where the course leads—the powers that be, after all, became "powers that be" while on this course, so why would they change it? Prohibition will not end so long as the People are content with a government that puts children in danger of drugs, drug abuse, and inhuman totalitarianism.

Someday, I suspect, children will live in a world with drug-abuse free schools and neighborhoods. When that happens, it will only be because prohibition finally came to a much too delayed end. I do not know when this day will come, but I believe it will come sometime because too many people know the truth about drug prohibition. When drug prohibition ends the children will look back at history and ask themselves: Why were they so stupid? Those will be some smart “little you-know-whats.”


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana Prohibition: It’s Not About Rollin’ a Fatty

Some people think medical marijuana is a big joke. Most of these people are otherwise good, long-standing members of law enforcement; trained to believe that marijuana (all marijuana) is contraband. For these people, “medical marijuana” is the same thing as “medical burglary” (impossible!).

The fact that the laws of 12 States currently recognize the existence of medical marijuana, not “medical burglary,” shows that such people are wrongheaded. But the rule of law is not the only evidence of a “medical” distinction that makes all the difference when talking about marijuana.

What is another distinction? Purpose or teleology (the natural end of a thing). For instance, if the reason a person uses marijuana is to ease the pain associated with a serious illness, then the marijuana in question is “medical.” However, if the marijuana is used for non-medical purposes, then it is not “medical”—it is, instead, mere “marijuana.”

Now the use of marijuana for medical purposes can take two forms. First, the use of marijuana can be for express medical purposes. In this case, a person consciously (with full knowledge) uses marijuana to relieve the suffering associated with a serious illness. There are hundreds of thousands of these kinds of medical marijuana patients.

Second, medical marijuana can also be used implicitly or unknowingly. Here, a person who has a serious illness, but does not know it or does not know that marijuana helps relieve it, unknowingly self-medicates with marijuana in social settings. The purpose, to be clear, is to get “high,” but primarily to feel better, not party or make new friends. There are millions of these kinds of medical marijuana patients.

The implicit medical marijuana patient is difficult to distinguish from the true non-medical user, because they often associate with each other; however, the express medical marijuana patient is easy to spot: just look for a doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis for medical purposes. The aforementioned 12 States will protect the latter person from criminal sanction, however, the Federal Government will not, because it sees no distinction between any of the above; none at all.

As far as the Federal Government is concerned, the simple possession of marijuana for any purpose is unlawful. This is the view at least of those political people with the authority to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs—contrarily the Court has suggested that medical marijuana patients, either express or implied, are protected by due process from Federal criminal sanction if the use of marijuana is truly medical.

Why does the Federal Government (politics) take such a draconian view of marijuana? Follow the money. First, medicine is just one known use of the plant known to science as Cannabis sativa L. There is a lot of money in medicine. Billions. Second, marijuana is also known to be a pleasant intoxicant, not unlike a cold beer. There is a lot of money in beer. Billions. Finally, marijuana is also known as hemp; a non-medical, non-intoxicating industrial plant with renewable uses that range from paper/fabric, to fuel and food. There is a lot of money there, too. Trillions.

Thus, legitimate medical marijuana patients are made to suffer because they have less political clout than the pharmaceutical industry, the alcohol industry, and the oil/tobacco/timber industries combined. Why would people who currently profit from marijuana prohibition want to end it?

Remember, Al Capone did not turn himself in—it took ordinary people (courage) to stop alcohol prohibition. It will take the same to end the prohibition of marijuana. The stakes, of course, are just as big, i.e., the peace and security of the people.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). Visit www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Famous Medical Marijuana Patients?

About 100 million Americans have used marijuana at least once in their life. Some of these people have turned out to be very successful, despite the stereotype of the lazy “pot head.” Taking a “toke” is apparently not, by itself, an obstacle to achievement.

President George W. Bush smoked “pot,” but he does not want people to know that…for the sake of the children. Political men like Bush having been protecting the children in their paradoxical way since the beginning (see Socrates’ accusers). In politics, saying one thing but doing another is nothing new. For some, that is politics.

Just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger. As a body-builder he tried marijuana for “fun,” but as a Governor of the first State in the Union to decriminalize marijuana for medical use in 1996, Schwarzenegger has been AWOL on the issue, tacitly allowing the Bush Administration to usurp California’s resources to conduct Federal-led medical marijuana raids that punish people for conduct the State of California does not consider illegal.

The fact that marijuana is illegal under Federal law did not stop Justice Clarence Thomas from getting “high.” To his credit, at least Thomas dissented from the 2005 Raich decision in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court somehow found in the Constitution’s commerce clause the authority to criminalize a wholly intra-state, non-commercial activity (even though the Court could not point to any empirical evidence showing that medical marijuana had a commercial impact on interstate commerce).

Parsing the law to justify one’s personal perspective comes easy to another famous cannabis connoisseur: Bill Clinton. The former commander-in-chief “proved” his tough-on-crime credentials by allowing his administration to go after doctors who recommend medical marijuana to seriously ill patients. Clinton couldn’t inhale himself, which somehow led him to continue the precedent of trying to prevent AIDS patients, cancer patients, and others suffering chronic pain from doing what he could not.

The nonsense of Clinton must be all too familiar to Al Gore—the Vice President who could-have-been, and who may still be, has, truthfully, acknowledged youthful “experimentation” with marijuana. Perhaps his past relationship with a plant that could be used to help end America’s “addiction to oil” is what’s behind Gore’s struggle to save the planet.

Nature has a way of asserting itself, despite mankind’s best efforts to conquer it. The 75th Congress first criminalized marijuana in 1937 due to misinformation and racial animus. This pre-Brown v. Board of Education (1954) marijuana policy still remains with us to this day, despite the Constitution’s promise of equality and the obvious connection between the war on drugs and institutional racism.

In every war there are casualties. They are always the poor, uneducated people who do not have the ability to defend themselves. The “fortunate sons,” like Bush, Schwarzenegger, Thomas, Clinton, and even Gore have managed to avoid, because of their power, the criminal justice system; though they are just as “guilty” as the hundreds of thousands of ordinary people arrested for simple possession each year.

That the above politicians have succeeded in government despite having smoked marijuana shows that the plant is not the deterministic cause of evil that closed-minded skeptics like to make it out to be. Like everything subject to human will, marijuana can be abused. But that is no reason to deny people access to the plant, especially if they need it for medical purposes.

Medical marijuana by itself is not a danger to society. The true threat is politicians without the courage to publicly stand up for what they privately know to be right: A free country may not, if it wishes to consider itself “free,” seek to punish the wholly private behavior of fully informed adults that does not cause harm to others. We the People did not form a more perfect Union so that DEA officers could kick in the doors of medical marijuana patients. End prohibition now!


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). See www.thebeginningoftoday.com for more information.

Medical Marijuana and Stem-cell Research

The Democratic radio address a few weeks ago, delivered by Claire McCaskill, Democratic candidate for the Senate in Missouri, focused on stem-cell research. What does medical marijuana have to do with stem-cell research? Well, both medical marijuana and stem-cell research spark an emotional debate wherein the moral prejudice of public officials tends to trump reason.

The morality of medical marijuana is plain enough. But some public officials still consider marijuana, even if used medically, to be the “devil’s weed.” This spiritual accusation is enough to close some minds completely. For them, it is guilt by assertion. In effect, they say, “Please don’t confuse me with the facts, because my mind is already made up.”

It is not uncommon today for a public official to decry the medical use of cannabis as a threat to public safety, as if people suffering from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, arthritis, and chronic pain could conceivably cause “harm” to others just by privately possessing marijuana. These drug-war-politicians also accuse doctors who care for medical marijuana patients of malpractice, because they charge fees and specialize in one type of patient care, as if it were immoral or illegal for doctors to expect payment for their time and/or focus on only one area of medicine.

The patent prejudice endured daily by medical marijuana patients and doctors is reminiscent of what the Democrats face with President Bush’s stance on stem-cell research. In her radio address, McCaskill challenges Bush not to veto stem-cell research legislation: “I must admit it is hard to understand that the President’s first veto in six years would amount to saying no to doctors, researchers, patients, and families. It would be saying no to saving lives.”

From the perspective of the medical marijuana patient, Bush’s threat to veto a stem-cell research bill is no surprise. After all, Bush has overseen an administration that constantly threatens to punish an individual patient merely for using marijuana to relieve the suffering associated with a serious illness. Of course, to be fair, Bush is no original, because saying “no to doctors, researchers, patients, and families” has been standard-operating-procedure for the Federal Government for about 69-years now.

When the 75th Congress first criminalized medical marijuana, it did so over the objection of the American Medical Association and on the basis of racial prejudice (directed primarily towards Spanish-speaking immigrants in the Southwest). Thus, the 12 States that currently recognize medical marijuana under their laws have simply brought their respective jurisdiction back into the policy-model that existed prior to 1937. In other words, medical marijuana is a return to common sense.

McCaskill appears to have a sense of common sense, and maybe she will get elected to serve the people of Missouri this November. Her compassion for the doctors who perform stem-cell research for the purpose of healing the sick is commendable. If she is willing to fight prejudice for the sake of stem-cell research, then maybe she’ll fight prejudice for the sake of medical marijuana patients, too. Her principles regarding stem-cell research would seem to demand that she and other Democrats do exactly that.


Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica 2004). For more information visit: www.thebeginningoftoday.com

Blaming the Victim: Medical Marijuana Patients

According to the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino, and Merced, medical marijuana patients pose a threat to public safety. How, exactly, an individual with a serious illness and a doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis as a means to find relief for their illness presents a threat to public safety is unclear. Sadly, the fact that there are no facts to support the charge that legitimate medical marijuana patients pose a risk to the safety of the public has not been enough to stop 69-years and counting of Federal medical marijuana prohibition.

The supervisors from San Diego, San Bernardino, and Merced counties prefer Federal medical marijuana prohibition to democracy. Even though each and every supervisor in question took a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of California, they nevertheless decided to spend California tax dollars on a lawsuit that argues the voters have no authority to prevent their own police officers from subjecting legitimate medical marijuana patients to criminal sanction and/or prosecution.

Apparently the supervisors from San Diego, San Bernardino, and Merced forgot to read the document they are supposed to be protecting. If they had read the Constitution of California, they should have come across Article III, section 3.5c, which clearly states that no agency of the State of California can refuse to enforce California’s (medical marijuana) laws on the basis that Federal law is different from California law.

In a federal system of government it is perfectly fine for officials of the State of California to not arrest a legitimate medical marijuana patient. Not arresting a person for following the advice of their doctor is not a Federal crime. The United States Supreme Court said that Federal officials “may” prosecute a legitimate medical marijuana patient under Federal law, if, in fact, after trial, medical marijuana is shown to have no medical value (an unlikely verdict if the facts are considered at trial since even Federal scientists concluded that marijuana has medical value in 1999). While the Court said that Federal law does not currently recognize the existence of medical marijuana, the Court did not say that California officials could enforce Federal law against legitimate medical marijuana patients.

Both State and Federal courts have routinely held that Federal law is the domain of the Federal authorities, not State officials. State courts do not enforce Federal law. If a California judge does not have the discretion to enforce Federal law, then how can a California police officer (someone who is far lower on the totem-pole than judges) enforce Federal law in a manner inconsistent with the voters of the State of California?

A unanimous California Supreme Court upheld California’s voter-approved medical marijuana law as a “wholly” California law issue in 2002. Therefore, the supervisors from San Diego, San Bernardino, and Merced have spent, and are currently spending, California tax dollars to ask a court to opine what a unanimous California Supreme Court has already opined, i.e., medical marijuana, under certain conditions, as far as California officials are concerned, is not to be subject to the California criminal justice system.

If a California official cannot tolerate medical marijuana patients, then that California official needs to resign for failure to fulfill the oath of office. The rule of law means following the law, not replacing it with personal prejudice. Ten years have passed since the voters of California enacted their medical marijuana law. For the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino, and Merced to just now address the issue of medical marijuana (with a lawsuit of all things) reveals that they have been derelict in their duty.

Why didn’t the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino, and Merced enact medical marijuana regulations like the voters asked when the law was passed in 1996? By doing nothing the supervisors have created a situation where no one knows what the rules are with regard to the dispensation of medical marijuana in their respective jurisdiction. The problem is not the patients who need their medicine; the problem is the politicians who do not comply with their duty to faithfully enact California law, even the one they personally dislike. The failure of politicians to comply with the rule of law is the true threat to public safety.

Kenneth Michael White is an attorney and the author of “The Beginning of Today: The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” and “Buck” (both by PublishAmerica.com 2004). For more information visit; http://www.thebeginningoftoday.com