Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158690,00.htmlDrDetroit wrote:no link, yet
From the articleDrDetroit wrote:Landmark for the Bush administration??
How so?
I don't know, but something tells me Dins isn't going to take this wellThe 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 (search) was constitutional.
Wasn't sure.mvscal wrote:Who the hell do you think brought the case before them?DrDetroit wrote:Landmark for the Bush administration??
How so?
No American should be taking this well.Miss Demeanor wrote:From the articleDrDetroit wrote:Landmark for the Bush administration??
How so?
I don't know, but something tells me Dins isn't going to take this wellThe 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 (search) was constitutional.
mvscal wrote:Just another blatant abuse of the motherfucking commerce clause.
I knew that from the article.DrDetroit wrote:Their ruling is based on the interstate commerce clause.
Thanksmvscal wrote:Here is a good background piece on the Commerce Clause by Robert Bork and Daniel Troy.Miss Demeanor wrote:I knew that from the article.DrDetroit wrote:Their ruling is based on the interstate commerce clause.
I was just curious about mvs and his use of the term "another".
LOCATING THE BOUNDARIES:
THE SCOPE OF CONGRESS'S POWER
TO REGULATE COMMERCE
ROBERT H. BORK* AND DANIEL E. TROY**
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm#*
Exactly what did Bush hope to accomplish with this ruling? Another great victory in his "War on drugs"?SAN FRANCISCO - One of the lead plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday says she'll defy the ruling and continue to smoke pot.
ADVERTISEMENT
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value.
Justice
John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997, after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is battling degenerative spine disease.
"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said.
Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other plaintiff, to close.
Raich suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems.
Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other states, but have taken measures — such as not keeping client lists — to protect their customers from arrest.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations and their clients' pot supplies.
Raich and Monson sued Attorney General
John Ashcroft because they feared their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up.
To be correct, its been going on since before Poppy Bush was even born.mvscal wrote:His war on drugs?
Sorry guy, this blatantly unconstitutional war on drugs has been going on for far longer than he's been in office.
Fair enough. We'll give you Charlie Rangel if you give us Chimpy.mvscal wrote:So I guess he should get the credit for Social Security then too, right?Mister Bushice wrote:Doesn't matter how long it's been going on. He's continuing it, and in this fashion.
Or is he only responsible for the New Deal legacy programs you don't like?
What has he done for Social Security? When he does something, he can get the credit. As long as he's forcing his moral drug agenda down the throats of sick people who are benefitting from its use, he can take that credit too.mvscal wrote:So I guess he should get the credit for Social Security then too, right?Mister Bushice wrote:Doesn't matter how long it's been going on. He's continuing it, and in this fashion.
No, but it's his fault that FDR got polio. ;)Or is he only responsible for the New Deal legacy programs you don't like?
Fer sure dudette!!Mister Bushice wrote:Not everyone is willing to abide by this ruling:
"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said.
He had the option NOT to appeal, and chose to appeal it anyway. He wasn't obliged to do that, except within his own narrow focused brain.mvscal wrote:He isn't fixing it. He is enforcing it. Same as with the various drug laws. As long as these shitty laws are on the books, he is obliged to enforce them.
I'm not blaming him for anything. I was merely responding to your comment of whether he should get credit for social security. Unless he does something other than continuing to fund it and makes no inroads into fixing it, no. He gets no more credit than any other president who didn't do shit about it.You attempting to blame him for 70 year old legislation is, at once, the height of both hypocricy and imbecility.
I'm not blaming him for social security. Hows that mister anal?mvscal wrote:Try again. Not all of us here have five minute attention spans.Mister Bushice wrote:I'm not blaming him for anything.
Mister Ritalinice wrote:Another great victory in his "War on drugs"?
Although I'm sure I could have hit that one doc who wrote something like 75% of the presciptions(out of the back of his van) up for a card at one time, I didn't. I don't need to tell the freaking government that I like to burn a little on an occasion -- didn't seem like a good idea.Miss Demeanor wrote:I don't know, but something tells me Dins isn't going to take this well
I'm sure you didn't mean that. Congress and the right thing in the same sentence?Miss Demeanor wrote:I guess that one can only hope that Congress will do the right thing here
There's the catch -- they have to come up with eveidence that you're growing, which IS a crime. Can't break down your door for possession. Which brings things right back to Square One -- bad things will happen to the stupid people, the smarter ones will get over. And the Supreme Court can't change THAT law, which has been in effect since man first walked on two legs.mvscal wrote: Won't stop the Feds from hammering your cornhole.
This case has nothing to do with "druggies."Left Seater wrote:I am all for state's rights in this case. Let CA do what they want. Hell, it brings a smile to my face when I think about it. Regional pockets around the country where pot is legal. CA, MA, MI. What's wrong with that. If they allow it maybe more of the druggies will leave TX and never come back.
Oh, I forgot -- prohibitions eliminate drug use.Left Seater wrote:If they allow it maybe more of the druggies will leave TX and never come back.
So what you are saying is that laws making murder illegal are actually increasing murder. Taking that one small step further we might as well do away with all laws since they just lead to more lawlessness as you claim.And since it's known that prohibitions increase violent crime
That's like saying everybody who walks into a casino ends up like this guy.Left Seater wrote:In my view those who use pot for any reason are druggies. I know many people disagree with that take, but if you spend about 10 minutes around a place like Sierra Tucson or Betty Ford you might see it the same as I do.
The part where it isn't physically addictive, by any medical study whatsoever.Left Seater wrote:Tell me what part of watching a relative become hooked on "medical" pot perscribed by a Dr isn't real?
So transferring your personal loss to prohibition is the answer?Left Seater wrote:Tell me what part of the stories shared at Sierra Tucson durring family week about pot just being the launching pad for other drugs isn't real? Tell me what part of not having a father because he was murdered by drunk driver isn't real?
I never called you weak, bro.Left Seater wrote:I sadly know "real" very well. Call me F'ing weak as you put it, but clearly not everyone will end up like your example, nor will everyone become addicted or an alcoholic. But given the fact that such a large percentage of our population stuggles with these things they should be controlled.
I see the rehab industry has you hook, line and sinker.Left Seater wrote:I got the fact that it wasn't a personal shot, but was using "real" first hand events to support my arguement.
Again, a few minutes around a place like Sierra Tucson will give you all the "medical study" info you need on the subject of pot being addictive.
If mine were but the only loss that would be a different story, but watch about 10 minutes of you local news cast or read "your" paper and you will see plenty of stories similar to mine, pot included.
Not everyone has trouble with pot, just like I know my limits with alcohol. However, there are plenty of people who don't know or can't control themselves and it becomes a legit danger to you and I.
In response to Ashcroft's agents running amok.mvscal wrote:On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.Miss Demeanor wrote:This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.
One would think they'd have better things to do
but apparently not.
Hmm, I guess what confused me wasmvscal wrote:On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.Miss Demeanor wrote:This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.
One would think they'd have better things to do
but apparently not.
But whoever brought the case to the Supreme Court has won a landmark victory. I can hardly wait for the arrests to begin."The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, which appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court in California ruled for the two women.
Just out of coincidence, I saw a friend last night who works for the health department, and processes the applications. For the sake of accuracy, my 75% number was incorrect. Health department dude roughly estimated Dr. Leveque(sp?) wrote around half of the state's ~10,000 presciption/recommendations(whatever the correct terminology is for dr. approval on the forms). He also estimated that between Leveque and his business partners, they wrote around 95% of them. What a great country. Dude would tour the stae, set up some makeshift clinic, and line people up for interviews. The magic words were "marijuana seems to help more than anything else." Boom, he signed your paperwork......for the low low price of $175 per "exam." Multiply $175 times 5000 in a couplefew months, and 80 year old on-his-way-out doc raked some in en route to the retirement home. I think the state ganked his medical license when all was said and done.Dinsdale wrote:Although I'm sure I could have hit that one doc who wrote something like 75% of the presciptions(out of the back of his van) up for a card at one time, I didn't.
I still don't get the "landmark" nature of this decision...care to explain, MissD?Miss Demeanor wrote:Hmm, I guess what confused me wasmvscal wrote:On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.Miss Demeanor wrote:This is truly a "landmark" case for the Bush Administration.
One would think they'd have better things to do
but apparently not.
But whoever brought the case to the Supreme Court has won a landmark victory. I can hardly wait for the arrests to begin."The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, which appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court in California ruled for the two women.
I think it's definitely better to use some opiate or synthetic opiate to control pain and/or relieve nausea.