This is a rallying call, and it’s one challenge we’re ready to meet.
Radley is right.
Consider this a challenge. If you blogged about Raich today, give us at least three posts a week for the next three months aimed at making Hinchey-Rohrabacher and the Truth in Trials Act law. Let’s find out what Congressmen are standing in either bill’s way. Let’s shame them. Let’s pursuade those on the fence to come down off of it. If you lean Republican, and your Congressman is a GOPer who has voted against bills like these, explain their hypocrisy to them. Ask them what happened to federalism, the Tenth Amendment, and the right of states to set their own rules and policies when it comes to medical treatment.
I’ll take the pledge.
And for those of you who aren’t bloggers? Same thing goes. Here’s how you can find out how your Congressperson voted in 2003 and 2004 (An ‘Aye’ vote is good — means stop spending federal money to harrass patients in states where medical marijuana has been legalized by the state. A ‘No’ vote means to continue to go after medical marijuana patients.)
Once you find out, write them and either encourage them to continue voting Aye or change from No to Aye. If they voted No in the past, also write a letter to your paper, wondering why your Congressperson wants to waste your community’s tax dollars by going after sick people in California, and encourage a change in vote. Or, if you live in California or one of the medical marijuana states, ask why your Congressperson doesn’t care about the laws and the will of the people of their own state — do they care more about Washington DC than [your local town]?
We’ve waited for too many months hoping for the Supreme Court to solve our problems with Congress’ Reefer Madness. We have to make it clear now that we will no longer allow them to act this way — and we need the active and loud support of ordinary people.
We also need to continue to apply pressure on the re-scheduling efforts (which includes peripheral efforts like ASA’s challenge of HHS under the Data Quality Act). This is particularly important since the Raich decision did leave some potential warnings by the court…
Again from Radley, via Mark Moller at Cato:
Stevens, in footnote 37, suggests that “evidence proferred by respondents . . . if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I.” I think that’s a clear signal to lower courts to give a serious hearing to any medical marijuana proponents seeking review of a DEA reclassification hearing under the current Controlled Substances Act–and a warning to the DEA to take those arguments seriously.
And while I’m touting Radley’s coverage of Raich (which has been outstanding), I’ve got to say that I agree with his criticism of Raich coverage from portions of the left. Shameful.