Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,033

    Calif. AG: Don't Panic Over Pot Ruling

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...juana_reaction


    I wonder if the mediacal marijuana will be outlawed for good? Who knows...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Another example of the myth that republicans don't like big government.
    This is a result of the right wing bush agenda taking away the rights of the individual states to make their own law.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    Originally posted by blue27
    Another example of the myth that republicans don't like big government.
    This is a result of the right wing bush agenda taking away the rights of the individual states to make their own law.
    You do realize that this was a decision handed down by the Supreme Court upholding federal law and that it was not the Bush Administration that made marijuana illegal?

    Justice Stephens was the Justice who wrote the majority opinion.
    Rich
    WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to Build and Promote your Web Site

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Do you realize that the supreme court can be strongly influenced by the party in power?
    How do you think this got to the supreme court in the first place?

    It was lawyers from bush's justice department who put it there.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/0....ap/index.html

    The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    I cannot argue with the fact that the case was appealed by the Administration but it is not uncommon for the Federal Government to appeal a case when a lower court is trying to set aside its laws.

    You obviously did not catch my first statement that is was Justice Stephens who wrote the majority opinion. Do you really think he cares what the Bush administration thinks about any of the court's rulings?

    I'll cut you a bit of slack because you're Canadian but it really is silly to blame the ruling that a Supreme Court decides that has proven itself time and again to really care little about the administration in power.

    If Congress wants to pass a law overturning federal law prohibiting the use of Marijuana as practiced by the states then they can. There was federally approved use of medical mj prior to all these state laws. The states just made it easier for people to grow it for themselves.

    In this case, the Executive Branch is bound to enforce the laws that have been passed and now upheld by two branches of the government. If the Congress wants to change the federal law, they have the power to do so but the Executive branch enforces it.

    Setting aside the issue (which is filled with much misinformation and advocacy), I actually disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on the groungs that it was made. They based the ruling on the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right to restrict interstate commerce but, in this case, there was none.

    What is so ironic about this is that they cited case law during the Roosevelt Administration that made the New Deal constitutional. The very thing that the Liberals love - strong federal government - in this case worked against them in trumping the right of States to make their own laws concerning issues in which the Constitution does not give explicit authority for the Federal Government to make.

    This isn't meant to poke liberals in the eye over but just shows how each side of the debate will compromise their principles for specific issues. I actually agree that the Federal Government should not get involved in this case from a Constitutional standpoint and it is duplicitous for a conservative to enjoy federal intervention only when it is protecting things they like. Nevertheless, it is equally ridiculous for liberals who are pushing for strong federal government to decry laws that hurt them but then push for federal laws imposing standards that they agree with.

    Let's just talk about the entire picture here and not deceive ourselves that this is all about that evil man in the White House trying to just be evil again. There is duplicity to go around for everyone.
    Rich
    WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to Build and Promote your Web Site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    You can delude yourself all you want.
    Since you are an American I would expect that and "cut you some slack".

    The fact of the matter is that this would not have passed if the bush administration did not persue it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    Originally posted by blue27
    You can delude yourself all you want.
    Since you are an American I would expect that and "cut you some slack".

    The fact of the matter is that this would not have passed if the bush administration did not persue it.
    "What" would have passed? The law has been on the books for years. I'm not trying to be uncivil and the Canadian thing was a joke but do you understand that this was a ruling on existing law and that Bush wasn't even in politics when it was codified.

    I granted the point that the Bush administration pursued appealing a lower court decision legalizing it but I'm not at all deluded into painting this thing as some sort of "black and white" "Bush is to blame" issue. There is far more substance to the issue than platitudes.
    Rich
    WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to Build and Promote your Web Site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    For the record, I don't really believe all Americans are deluded.

    Rich, the law was in place but until late 2001 it wasn't enforced in states that chose to write their own medical marijuana laws.

    It was and is a part of Bush's agenda. He makes no secret of that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    Originally posted by blue27
    For the record, I don't really believe all Americans are deluded.

    Rich, the law was in place but until late 2001 it wasn't enforced in states that chose to write their own medical marijuana laws.

    It was and is a part of Bush's agenda. He makes no secret of that.
    Maybe so. We'll have to see who gets prosecuted now.

    Again, I actually believe this should be decided by the States since it is not a case where the Constitution gives the Federal government the right to intervene.
    Rich
    WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to Build and Promote your Web Site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    2,585
    I find it ironic how terminal patients can be given morphine and other very strong additive drugs.. but can't be given marajuana. Do you know the "man made drug" or marajuana can be as expensive as $88.00 per pill?

    I am sure if they changed the name.. no one would even notice. But since its "marajuana" (one side) freaks out.
    www.JGRoboMarketing.com / We Filter out the Bad Leads and Send you the Good ones!
    █ Office: (800) 959-0182 / Automated Lead Funnel Service

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    That's a good point RealtorHost. I think part of the battle is a perception one. The "perception" from many on the right is that it is a bunch of potheads and wierdos lining up on the side of legalizing marijuana. The news media doesn't do that side any favors. They parade out a bunch of people stoking on doobies celebrating state decisions. The whole thing ends up looking to the uninformed as an excuse to smoke MJ. Many MD's are still way behind the power curve when it comes to studying and dealing with pain properly. I honestly haven't studied medical marijuana use enough to debate the benefits/detriments satisfactorily. I just think the proponents could sometimes do better if they didn't come across like Cheech and Chong getting one over on the Man (again that's not what it is but it appears to many that way).
    Rich
    WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to Build and Promote your Web Site

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,550
    I still don't get why they don't just legalize it and let the freemarket sort everything out. Hell we live with much more dangerous drugs that are legal to purchase. Cough alcohol cough. Lets stack number of deaths related to each and oh look alcohol is legal and causes far more damage than marijuana., Interesting isn't it. Now drugs are bad and all but I don't understand why government favors a far more dangerous drug and shuns a less dangerous drug that could potentially boost tax revenues. What happened to capitalism?
    Patron: I'd like my free lunch please.
    Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
    Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
    Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by DevilDog
    The "perception" from many on the right is that it is a bunch of potheads and wierdos lining up on the side of legalizing marijuana. The news media doesn't do that side any favors. They parade out a bunch of people stoking on doobies celebrating state decisions. The whole thing ends up looking to the uninformed as an excuse to smoke MJ.
    That is a very big part of the problem.
    There are many stories out there of elderly people who use medical marijuana and say it is the only thing that keeps them going. These are not the stories that the media perpetuates.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •