Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: Sativus] #112946 - 08/22/08 03:22 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
I hope this spreads to the rest of the country-- unless I'm mistaken, this is the last hurdle the states had to jump before being fully able to tax and regulate to the open market-- or at the minimum, decriminalize...
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: coAsTal] #112954 - 08/22/08 03:37 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: Harry_Ba11sach] #112955 - 08/22/08 03:50 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
Registered: 04/23/08 Posts: 25,306 Loc: Sativa Central Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: mel_lonta_tauda] #112956 - 08/22/08 03:51 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: Coaster] #112958 - 08/22/08 03:53 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: mel_lonta_tauda] #112962 - 08/22/08 04:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
Registered: 04/20/08 Posts: 354 Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: coAsTal] #112966 - 08/22/08 04:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)
Quote: coAsTal said: I have a feeling that anything 10th-Amendment-affirming will be avoided at all costs by the MSM-- call it a hunch...
Was the 10th ammendment mentioned as a factor in the decision?
I'll definitely be skimming through the abstract and opinions later today.
EDIT: ya, that seems to be the basis of the case. It was upheld in part due to that claim (parts of the claim were denied). Furthermore, 4th, 5th, and 9th ammendment claims were dismissed by the plaintiffs.
Of course, you will never ever ever see a case like this go all the way to the supreme court in our lifetimes. Just making sure nobody here is holding that delusion. A tenth ammendment claim being upheld is rare indeed, and is a great minor victory.
One thing to keep in mind:
"If Plaintiffs can prove that Defendants are enforcing the CSA in the manner alleged, a question as to which the Court expresses no opinion, they may be able to show that Defendants deliberately are seeking to frustrate the state’s ability to determine whether an individual’s use of marijuana is permissible under California law. A working system of recommendations, identification cards and medicinal providers is essential to the administration of California’s medical marijuana law."
So the burden of proof and litigation are still there, meaning that there will be more court cases in the coming months and years.
Re: Federal Court Rules U.S. Govt May NOT Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws [Re: coAsTal] #113180 - 08/23/08 10:38 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)
I still see this as a vital accomplishment in the fight to undo the ban on cannabis, and I look forward to hearing the government flop around trying to justify keeping something illegal and categorized as Schedule 1 (meaning high potential for addiction and no medical value whatsoever) when there's copious evidence, laying in plain sight, all over the place showing otherwise
I believe cannabis will be legal before you know it-- even with the cynical zealots we have in washington and mindless idiots clogging churches nationwide, there's simply too much money being left on the table for the parasites to leave alone--
Think about it: this crusade has always been about 1) inflating/creating a "need" for more and more violent government; and 2) targeted punishment of certain races/classes of people to keep them out of "civilized society"
These tyrants have pissed on the rights of millions, and terrorized hundreds of millions, to justify taking your tax money to spend on perpetuating itself, but I think that they realize now that the BS facade is flaking off, and people just aren't buying the propaganda anymore (when over 70% of Americans think it should be decriminalized, despite billions spent on a "war" against peaceful users of this plant, that says a lot about the ineffectiveness of the disinformation campaign, doesn't it?) They're not stupid-- they can see this as easily as you and I.
I think the bottom line is this: it's NEVER been about public safety-- else alcohol and cigarettes would be in the scope, not a demonstrably harmless plant. It's been about bringing money into the government via an ever-expanding "program" offered by government. In this case, law enforcement.
Since the entire program is failing, along with the rest of the economy, they will soon forget their moralizing on cannabis, like California and over 10 other states have already done, and shift to taxing/regulating the use of it so they can replace the increasingly unpopular law-enforcement revenue with sales-tax revenue-- which is much more valuable money for the simple fact that they can spend it in more places than just on more law-enforcement.
Our government is bankrupt, whether you are currently educated enough to know it or not. I assure you, they themselves are slowly coming to this realization, and when that reality hits with full force, watch how fast they scramble to find more money anywhere.
Legalizing and taxing cannabis is an easy, and popular, way to add billions to their coffers without costing them much of anything in return.
We'll see what happens... but I think that pragmatism, not altruism, is what will make this decision go our way in the end... just as it did with alcohol.
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
