THE ANTIQUE CANNABIS BOOK Chapter 3 - (2nd Edition) CENSORED MEDICAL STUDIES

SUBJECT RELATED NEWS RELEASES:
On Sept. 17, 1999, the ACLU issued out the following press release: ^[1]

Federal Court Allows DC Government to Tally Medical Marijuana Initiative Vote
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 17, 1999

WASHINGTON -- In a sweeping ruling, a federal court today said that Congress had acted improperly in attempting to block the District of Columbia from tallying the results of a ballot measure on medical marijuana.

"Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of DC voters and home rule," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, which had filed the lawsuit last year.   "We're delighted that the Federal court has so completely vindicated the rights of District residents."

At issue before the court was Initiative 59, a ballot measure that would legalize the medical use of marijuana when recommended by a physician to alleviate serious illnesses such as AIDS, cancer and glaucoma.   The initiative was put before the DC voters in November 1998, but the result was never tallied or released because Congress had passed legislation forbidding the District from spending any funds to conduct the initiative.

In a 24-page ruling, Federal District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts agreed with the ACLU that despite its author's intent, the Congressional measure -- which was introduced by Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA -- did not prohibit the District government from counting, announcing or certifying the results of the referendum on Initiative 59.

Responding to the ACLU's other claim that the measure was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, Judge Roberts said that he did not need to rule on the constitutional questions because he had already ruled that the Barr measure did not prohibit the initiative process from going forward.   But if Congress had done so, Judge Roberts said, it would have been unconstitutional.

"In this case, First Amendment speech through the vote would have been effectively extinguished if the Barr Amendment had blocked releasing and certifying the results," Roberts said.   "To cast a lawful vote only to be told that that vote will not be counted or released is to rob the vote of any communicative meaning whatsoever."

Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project, hailed Judge Roberts' decision, saying that "hostility to medical marijuana is no excuse for canceling an election."

"This decision," he added, "will ensure that voters have an opportunity to chart a more compassionate course that places medicine over politics."

The case is Turner v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.   Attorneys in the case are Graham Boyd and Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU.

How could all of this have happened in America, a land noted for its democratic traditions?   The answer is simple, it’s called the War on Drugs, also known in other countries as the American disease.

It seems that there are those (among something we now term, the National Drug Enforcement Industries) who want to keep their positions of power.   Irregardless of who or what gets hurt. -- even (as we have seen above) to the point of doing away with our constitutional republic and its democratic principles.

http://www.levellers.org/dcexit.htm
Protect the Patients!
Yes on 59
409 H Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 547-9404

For immediate release: November 4, 1998

Washington, DC -- DC voters expressed their overwhelming support at the polls today for Initiative 59, despite attempts by Congress to derail the election.   Initiative 59, organized by local activists, protects the seriously and terminally ill from prosecution in the use of medical marijuana, under a doctor's instructions.

Exit polls indicate that District residents voted by 69% in favor of Initiative 59 (Total voters polled 763.  Margin of error +/- 3.6%) Exit polling was conducted by the firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, independently from the Yes on 59 Campaign.

The actual results, however, will not be revealed, according to a statement issued by the DC Board of Elections and Ethics.   "under pressure and mandate from Congress," according to the Board's news release issued late Tuesday afternoon.

A Congressional amendment to the DC budget mandates "none of the funds contained in this act may be used to conduct any ballot initiative" reducing the penalties for marijuana use, even by the sick and dying.

On Friday, October 30, the American Civil Liberties Union filed in Federal Court.   The suit argues that the congressional Act (known as the Barr amendment) is unconstitutional.   Meanwhile, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics "is in the process of seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether it must abide by the First Amendment to insure the free speech rights of District of Columbia citizens are protected or whether it must follow the prohibition against conducting a ballot initiative which seeks to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes."

"The vote of the people will not be stopped." states Wayne Turner, who took over the Initiative 59 Campaign, after his longtime partner Steve Michael, died from AIDS.   "Fighting Congress is easier than fighting a disease."

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/democracy-held-hostage
Democracy Held Hostage
December 31, 2000

Seizing ballot boxes was once the unique province of military dictators like Nigeria's General Sani Abacha.   Abacha refused to announce the results of Nigeria's 1993 election when the citizenry appeared to favor the General's civilian rival, Moshood Abiola.   In a little noticed development, the United States recently experimented with its version of tinpot democracy, when for the first time in this nation's history, an election was canceled for fear of its outcome.

Our domestic dictator, the Canceler of Elections? Congressman Bob Barr.   The subject matter so nefarious that the voters should not be allowed to speak?   Medical marijuana. And the colony-the Last American Plantation-where Congress would dare to seal, if not steal, the ballot box?   The District of Columbia.

This article tells the story, surprisingly unknown to the public outside of D.C., of federal litigation to require the District of Columbia to announce the results of the vote on the District's medical marijuana initiative.   The case turned on the First Amendment rights of the voters to express themselves through the voting process and to learn the results of their duly cast ballots.

On Election Day 1998, people in five states and the District of Columbia voted on ballot initiatives to allow critically ill patients to use marijuana for medical purposes without fear of prosecution under state or local laws.   California and Arizona had already passed similar initiatives two years earlier.   The measures passed by a landslide in all states, but the voters of D.C. were told that they, unique among American citizens, would not learn the results of the vote on their medical marijuana law, Initiative 59.

The District of Columbia, falling directly under the legislative power of Congress, suffers an annual barrage of clauses and amendments in the annual budget bill that reflect the social agenda of Congressional representatives of the 50 states-politicians not elected by D.C. residents.   The restrictions placed by Congress on D.C. are arbitrary impositions of politically conservative principles on the city, regardless of the opinions of its residents.   A certain Congressman Armstrong who disliked gays and lesbians once inserted in the annual D.C. appropriations bill a measure to ensure that universities in D.C. do not have to fund gay and lesbian organizations.   Another Congressman snuck in a measure to prevent any organization in D.C. receiving federal funds from using even private funds to operate a needle exchange.   Other measures have tinkered with abortion laws, efforts to allow benefits for unmarried domestic partners, and school voucher rules.   None of these measures was able to gain support from Congress for national legislation.   But, as a little noticed rider to a massive appropriations bill, a single Congressman has been able to impose his views upon a city of 570,000 residents.

Thus the Barr Amendment of 1998 carried the tradition of D.C. subjugation an outrageous step further.   Congress stole an election, preventing the people of D.C. from even learning the results of their vote on Initiative 59 for over a year. . . . [more]

BACK TO ADDENDUM A

BACK TO MAIN PAGE

ON TO ADDENDUM C