A Simple Legal Question

A Simple Legal Question
Posted by CN Staff on January 31, 2005 at 09:03:36 PT
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Source: Boston Herald
On rare occasions a lawyer makes a decision so reasonable it takes your breath away. The acting solicitor general of the United States, the government's chief appellate lawyer, has told Congress he will not appeal a district court's ruling that a law banning aid to transit systems that accept ads advocating the legalization of marijuana is an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.Ho hum, you say? Listen to the reason Paul Clement gave: ``The government does not have a viable argument to advance in the statute's defense.''
We need more lawyers like that - lawyers who refuse to mount no-hope appeals - both in government service and in private practice. Remember the Clinton administration's Justice Department, arguing - in vain - that Secret Service agents couldn't be questioned about a president's conduct?    In private practice there may not be much to hope for. Clients do, after all, insist on throwing away their money in hopeless causes. A lawyer is entitled to take it if he can file and argue an appeal with a straight face. Government work is different. Government lawyers, of course, have a duty to defend the interests of their clients, even when they disagree with the policy in question, but just look around. Cases like the marijuana transit ads come up all the time. Clement's case arose in the Washington, D.C., transit system, which had accepted such ads before the law passed, but stopped for fear of losing federal transit aid. After the lower-court ruling, it started running the ads again.    The MBTA lost a similar case last year in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, a case in which the transit aid law did not figure. The court said the T had unlawfully discriminated against pro-marijuana ads.    We don't want legalized marijuana, but we also don't want any level of government deciding that some issue ads are permissible and some are not. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. Hats off to Clement for understanding it. Source: Boston Herald (MA)Published: Monday, January 31, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Boston Herald, Inc.Website: letterstoeditor bostonherald.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Change The Climate Refuse To Defend Free-Speech Assault Must Accept Pro-Marijuana Ads Department Refuses To Defend Congress 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #40 posted by afterburner on February 02, 2005 at 08:39:04 PT
Potential for Abuse? Computer Tech and Dog Sniffs
Feb. 2, 2005. 07:07 AM
OPP targets auto erratics:
Hunt for hot cars, `wanted' drivers:
Licences can be checked instantlyBOB MITCHELL
STAFF REPORTER{You're driving on Highway 401 when an OPP cruiser suddenly pulls in behind your Subaru Impreza.{A quick glance at your speedometer leaves you relieved; you're doing the speed limit. You don't remember changing lanes improperly.{Seconds later, the cruiser pulls out and passes. You're cleared.{But you wonder why the officer seemed interested in you.{Without so much as waving you over, he or she has checked your licence plate using an in-car computer and discovered there's no need to stop you. And that Big Brother scenario is now taking place dozens of times a day, under a directive from OPP Supt. Peter Burns ordering officers to heighten their search for lawbreakers on the highways.{Something about your driving caught the officer's attention. Plus, your car happens to be the top target of car thieves.{So the officer ran your plate and within seconds learned that your car hadn't been reported stolen. And that you're not one of more than 430,000 Ontarians whose licence has been suspended, for something criminal like impaired driving or for failing to pay child support, or just not paying a fine. And that you're not on the "wanted" list.{Police are on the lookout primarily for specific vehicles, based on alerts for stolen cars, cargo theft or a car that's not insured. But they also randomly run plates to catch criminals. {Checking driver records once required a radio call and a long wait. Now, a computer system installed in 140 cruisers last July offers an almost instant link to CPIC (Canadian Police Information Computer) and the Ministry of Transportation database, and access to information on any car and its owner. {Officers can retrieve key details, such as whether the plate owner is wanted for a crime, has a criminal record, owes fines, is under suspension or belongs to an organized crime group.{Although a simple plate check can't verify who's behind the wheel, it may tell police there is reason to stop the vehicle. It also warns officers if the plate owner has a history of violence. Ontario police have had the power to do random checks under the Highway Traffic Act for years, something Andrew Murie, executive director of MADD Canada, says is potentially lifesaving. Trained officers can spot motorists who may be driving impaired with only subtle signs, Murie said, "and this technology allows an officer to take a closer look. If their licence is suspended, then they can stop them."{David Tanovich, a law professor at the University of Windsor, said randomly running plates doesn't present legal issues, provided drivers aren't being singled out on the basis of race.{"As long as they're doing it for a valid Highway Traffic Act purpose, including discovering whether the vehicle is stolen, there isn't a constitutional concern," Tanovich said.{Police may stop a vehicle even if there's no suspicion that the driver has violated the Highway Traffic Act. "There is always some reason to run a plate," said Burns, regional commander for the OPP's Greater Toronto Region, which runs from Oshawa to Niagara Falls and up to Lake Simcoe. {"We have to ensure the right plate matches the vehicle, which is usually the first indication whether we have a stolen vehicle. We're running plates if a vehicle fits the profile of a commonly stolen vehicle," Burns said. "If a vehicle has recent damage but it's not been fixed, that's a good sign that the driver doesn't have insurance." {Intelligence on stolen goods is another reason to stop a vehicle. For instance, they'll check whether the plate on a cargo trailer matches the truck's.{"Catching speeders and other traffic violators is still our bread and butter, but there are thousands of criminals using our highways every day," Burns said. "And we have exclusive access to them."{Of the 433,000 people in Ontario with suspended licences, about 40,000 lost their driving privileges for crimes such as dangerous or impaired driving. Many are on the road anyway.{"We have to do a better job of getting the bad guys off the highways," Burns said. {Thousands of GTA motorists may be violating the law: {At least 90,000 Ontarians are driving without insurance; last year, the OPP charged 5,277. About 45 per cent of licence suspensions are because of unpaid fines. In 2004, the OPP charged 1,287 in the GTA with driving while suspended. {More than 80,000 parents are suspended because they failed to pay child support.}
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by Hope on February 01, 2005 at 13:28:18 PT
Kap, I wondered the same thing
In wondering about his appearance, I thought, 'possibly a narc', too. Perhaps a detective would be allowed to have that much facial hair. LEOs sometime sport mustaches, but I can't ever recall seeing one with any sort of beard."Flashing eyes", to me, would indicate anger...and he probably was. I know the hardest thing for him had to be watching them touch his child and he could do nothing about it.Treated like the average person is often treated by LEOs. Sure, he hated that. We all do. Public servant, my hinie. They're the 'boss of you' in situations like that, and they act like it. Everybody's a suspect. That doesn't seem right. It is about the huge industry built up around the drug war. When law enforcement and prison are a money making enterprise, any hope of freedom just can't be allowed. They are looking for customers.Pulled a fish out of the water. "Wow, look at him flounder around...are his eyes flashing?"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by FoM on February 01, 2005 at 11:47:21 PT
I agree with you not to demonize inhaling cannabis. I see benefits to Sativex in my mind's eye. Here is what I think of when I think of Sativex.If a person has a serious lung disease and the possibility of coughing while trying to use medicinal cannabis could make it not worth the risk. I think of someone who doesn't even have the strength anymore to even lift a glass of water or get out of bed.I basically see it as an excellent help for near death people.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by afterburner on February 01, 2005 at 11:30:51 PT
It's Great that Sativex Is Coming to Market & All
... but Asthma treatment belies the FDA objections to cannabis medicine. Asthmador was *smoked* for asthma relief back in the 1950's. Now, we have "puffers," which allow steroids to be inhaled to control asthma attacks."While American drug warriors have retreated to saying marijuana can’t be medicine because people smoke it, a British pharmaceutical company has developed Sativex, an under-the-tongue spray that allows patients to use full-spectrum, non-synthetic cannabis without inhaling anything."Please do not demonize *inhaling* as a medical delivery technique. Lives depend on it!asthma, puffers and other devices - everybody - New Zealand ...
"... PUFFERS AND OTHER DEVICES. The direct route. It makes good sense to breathe
asthma medicines straight into your lungs."asthma centre - everybody - Health Information for New Zealanders
"... Asthma is increasingly common in NZ. Making a. plan with your GP on how to manage
your asthma. is the best way to live a full and active life. ..." And don't forget the words of Peter Tosh in Legalize It!: "It's good for the flu 
It's good for asthma " --"Legalize It" by Peter Tosh's Roots Reggae - Lyrics
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by kaptinemo on February 01, 2005 at 10:48:09 PT:
Hope, I was just thinking that
I'm glad someobody said it first, though. Because my first thought was that his appearence was used as the basis for profiling him. The second thing I thought was "He's an undercover narc." I don't know what the grooming standards are for the RCMP, so I automtically assumed this.But if he was an undercover narc then, his cover has been forever blown. By another narc. How ironic if true...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by afterburner on February 01, 2005 at 10:11:54 PT
kaptinemo -- Comment #12
"putatively" got me thinking about the word "computer." The literal translation from the derivation is a device that allows us to think together. Outstanding! That's just what we do here at CNews.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by Hope on February 01, 2005 at 08:41:19 PT
Texans teaching profiling to RCMP
Constable Liang is a very "cool" looking guy. "Cool" in Texas translates to "doper". I wouldn't be afraid to bet that Mr. Liang's nice little goatee and mustache, as well as his spikey hair had a lot to do with the accusation of marijuana use.Any man with long hair in Texas gets profiled more than a Haitian imigrant in Texas. Well...maybe not more, but believe me...people get pulled over and searched because of long hair in Texas. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. It's about the money. It's about the forfeiture. It's highway robbery. When the government can get everything targets own, cars, money, homes...they are going to try to get it. They blather it's about getting drugs off the street...BULL...I know very well why they do it. Freedom...what a concept!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by kaptinemo on February 01, 2005 at 05:15:20 PT:
Unrelated: more about the Texas-RCMP traffic stop
Thanks to Grits For Breakfast for this link from the Vancouver CBC: Cop wins RCMP settlement after highway search is a relative newcomer in the reform blog circuit, but he's coming on strong and fast with a uniquely Texan viewpoint; well worth the visit, so says I. Another for my Daily Read list.)This is really starting to stink: the Texas State trooper wouldn't identify himself right off when challenged by the off-duty RCMP Constable Laing as to whether the Texan was a police officer. So...the proud and illustrious Mounties don't know how to conduct traffic stops? (And it is still not clear, given the detained RCMP constable's testimony, as to WHY he was stopped, as they hadn't any probable cause at the time to do so; it was seemingly random.) They need Texas State troopers to take them by the hand like little boys and show them how it's done? Worst of all, they need the Texans to show them how to 'identify' intoxicated drivers? Haven't the RCMP got enough experience on their own in doing that? Haven't they been doing that for as long as both they and automobiles have existed? (Given the fact the detained RCMP cop was first accused of being under the influence of cannabis AND THEN LET GO, the Texas Method of identification doesn't seem very effective.) Canux! Ever heard of the 'fruit of the poisoned tree'? Do you REALLY want American style policing on the part of your LEO's? DO YOU? Because, just as night follows day, you'll have the same kind of problems we have down here resulting from their methods. Constable Laing from the RCMP knows now what many, many American motorists have learned long ago. Namely, that police here have been extensively taught how to trick you out of rights few know they have. (Or had, thanks to the recent Supreme's ruling on dogs.) You have to ask: how many Canux were intimidated into allowing this 'alien' to search their vehicle and person without cause? Laing's been lucky; his country's laws still respect individual rights. He was able to get back at them and embarass them plenty; they were wrong and they knew it. But with this corrosive 'cross-pollination' of American LEO tactics being imported by the RCMP, how long can you expect to keep those rights, Canux? How long? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by siege on January 31, 2005 at 23:13:47 PT
''The infallible dog''
This is a joke and a wast of there time, I was taking one of my Pit Bulls to have her bred 
she was in the back of the pick up. I came to a check point and stoped they had there ( infallible dog ) there and it come alive and the Idiots cops took it as a searching for cannabis, they had me for over 2 hours. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 20:19:30 PT
 JustGetnBy and Hope
Thank you. I don't know what to say as a Golden Rule. I've been thinking and came up with this.We Should Be Kind and Always Try To Do Our Best To Be Fair.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by JustGetnBy on January 31, 2005 at 19:55:58 PT
JustGetnBys's Golden Rule
FOM  You have an incredibly big heart, thank you. I would like to share my golden rule with you, and the rest of the family. Please, share yours with us. WHAT IS THE KINDEST, FAIREST THING I CAN DO NOW RIGHT NOW>    
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by Hope on January 31, 2005 at 19:44:29 PT
That sounds good, FoM.
Very good. It makes me think the rescheduling will actually happen and soon.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 18:53:46 PT
ASA: January 2005 Update 
ASA: Key Medical Marijuana Developments - ASA's January 2005 Update   January 2005 - Key Medical Marijuana Developments 
 1. HHS answer due 2/4 on ASA's challenge to "misinformation" in response to 1995 rescheduling petition. 2. HHS Secretary nominee Leavitt promises to "make every effort" to speed up rescheduling recommendation. 3. Lots to gain, little to lose with US Supreme Court decision 4. Medical Marijuana Liquid On Pharmacy Shelves Soon in Canada 5. Overwhelming Popular Support Among Conservative Constituencies 6. More States & Cities Taking on Regulatory Role for Medical Marijuana 1. HHS answer due 2/4 on ASA's challenge to "misinformation" in response to 1995 rescheduling petition. Medical marijuana advocates are waiting for answer on ASA's Data Quality Act challenge to misinformation included by HHS in their 2001 recommendation to deny removing marijuana from Schedule I, the category for the most addictive and dangerous drugs. HHS had 60 days to respond to the October 4, 2004 challenge, and requested a 60 day extension, moving the deadline up to February 4, 2005. If HHS denies the need to make the requested changes, advocates can then legally challenge the finding. For more information on the Data Quality Act challenge, see: 2. HHS Secretary nominee Leavitt promises to "make every effort" to speed up rescheduling recommendation. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, of which ASA is a member, submitted a new petition in 2002 that contains a detailed summary of the scientific and medical findings that support the medical use of cannabis (marijuana) in the United States. This petition has been under review at the FDA since the DEA sent it on to them in August 2004. For more information on the petition see Senator Jim Jeffords took the opportunity of the confirmation hearing of HHS-nominee Michael Leavitt to raise awareness of this marijuana rescheduling petition and to put the future Secretary on notice that the Senate was watching to see whether the Department would unreasonably delay its response to the DEA. The following question was submitted by Senator Jeffords, and the answer from Leavitt follows:Question: "In August of 2004, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) forwarded a petition to reschedule marijuana to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The DEA requested from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation of marijuana, upon which it would base its decision as to whether to reschedule marijuana. By law, the Secretary of HHS is required to conduct this evaluation "within a reasonable time." As you may know, 10 states, including my home state of Vermont, currently allow for the medical use of marijuana, while the federal government does not. To address this discrepancy, the HHS evaluation needs to move forward. Governor Leavitt, can you work to ensure that this evaluation is completed by August 2005, one year after the request was received by HHS? If not, could you please explain what you would consider a "reasonable time" for this evaluation to be?"Answer: "FDA is currently reviewing the scientific data and must conduct a scientific and medical evaluation of marijuana in accordance with the statutory criteria and make a recommendation to DEA. We will make every effort to complete the evaluation by August 2005." 
3. Lots to gain, little to lose with US Supreme Court DecisionOn November 29, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a path-breaking decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that protects Prop. 215 patients from federal prosecution. If the patients in Raich vs. Ashcroft prevail, the federal government would be unable to arrest state-legal medical marijuana patients who use and/or grow marijuana non-commercially. The decision, Raich and Monson et al. v. Ashcroft, holds that the federal Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as applied to personal possession or cultivation of medical marijuana by patients and their caregivers, since their activities do not constitute interstate commerce (Court documents in Raich-Monson case). This could constitute a serious challenge to the jurisdiction of the federal government in drug control, an area that many states see as primarily a public health issue and therefore in their power to regulate. A decision in Ashcroft v. Raich most likely will come down around February 2005 or March 2005, but it could come down as late as June 2005. Several other cases will be affected by this decision, including a similar injunction filed by the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana against federal authorities, and two federal defendants out on appeal since the favorable decision by the Ninth Circuit, Bryan Epis and Keith Alden. However, a decision against the patients would not affect state laws that allow for medical marijuana, nor would it affect state and local law enforcement's obligation to respect the state laws allowing medical marijuana use. 4. Medical Marijuana Liquid In Pharmacies Soon in CanadaWhile American drug warriors have retreated to saying marijuana can’t be medicine because people smoke it, a British pharmaceutical company has developed Sativex, an under-the-tongue spray that allows patients to use full-spectrum, non-synthetic cannabis without inhaling anything. The Canadian government is set to approve its distribution. 5. Overwhelming Popular Support Among Conservative ConstituenciesNearly three-fourths of Americans middle age and older support legalizing marijuana for medical use, according to a poll taken for AARP released in December 2004. Marijuana Policy Project reports independent polls in Alabama and Texas registering three-to-one margins in support for laws to protect medical marijuana -- including 67 percent support among Texas Republicans. 6. More States & Cities Taking on Regulatory Role for Medical Marijuana The number of states permitting medical use of marijuana went from eight to 10 in 2004 with Vermont and Montana passing new medical marijuana laws, joining Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Local medical marijuana measures also passed in Detroit and Ann Arbor, Michigan and Columbia, Missouri. Campaigns for medical marijuana legislation are underway in Connecticut, Illinois, Texas, New York, and Rhode Island.Americans for Safe AccessA national coalition of 10,000 patients, doctors and advocates, Americans for Safe Access is the largest organization working solely on medical marijuana. To learn more, see, or call 510.486-8083.-- Stacey Swimme
Field Manager
Americans for Safe Access
1700 Shattuck Ave. #317
Berkeley, CA 94709
 Join the fight for medical marijuana rights!To receive ASA alerts, email asa-subscribe
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Taylor121 on January 31, 2005 at 17:35:28 PT
Nevada Legalization Headed Forward!
The Marijuana Policy Project won a huge victory on Friday, when afederal judge ordered the Nevada government to place our marijuanaregulation initiative on Nevada's 2006 ballot.U.S. District Court Judge James Mahan said Secretary of State Dean Heller followed an unconstitutional procedure when he rejected MPP's initiative in December ... and ordered him to immediately send the initiative to the legislature when it convenes on February 7. The
legislature is then required to consider our proposal and either pass it into law themselves (unamended) within 40 days or place it on the November 2006 ballot (unamended) so Nevadans can vote on it.The state has announced it will not appeal the ruling and will comply with the judge's order.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 17:20:25 PT
Had Enough
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I can't take much more stress. It does effect my health anymore.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Had Enough on January 31, 2005 at 17:17:44 PT
Fair Enough
Fair Enough. I did not post this for political reasons. I just thought it's content was cool.I've Had Enough, and I'm sure you have too
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 17:06:44 PT
Had Enough
I won't remove your post unless people start talking about that party. I'm not interested in politicans views just cannabis issues and other things we talk about. I really don't need the stress and it does stress me. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Had Enough on January 31, 2005 at 16:31:04 PT
Harry Brown
Cut and Paste job from Harry Brown’s website about halfway down. I thought people would like to see it. if this is not allowed here for copyright or other reasons, just zap it with your delete keyFrom the article:Oops: My apologies for starting an article last night and then abandoning it — not realizing that I'd saved to this Internet Journal the fragment I'd written. If you saw it, you must have thought I'd been recording my thoughts while getting high on the forbidden weed. There's also good news: Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled that federal judges no longer have to abide by the sentencing "guidelines" mandated by Congress. The Court said judges should consult those guidelines, but they don't have to abide by them (meaning the "guidelines" really are guidelines now, instead of commands). This should mean a reduction in cases where, say, a non-violent marijuana dealer goes to prison for 20 years or more.
One of my favorite reactions to the ruling came from Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL), who said, "The Supreme Court's decision to place this extraordinary power to sentence a person solely in the hands of a single federal judge — who is accountable to no one — flies in the face of the clear will of Congress." I guess he believes that "this extraordinary power" should be "solely in the hands" of some Congressional aide — "accountable to no one" and not even identified by name — who dreams up the sentences that must be imposed by every federal judge in the country. I doubt that Rep. Feeney could tell you what the minimum sentence for a first-offense conviction of a marijuana dealer is. 
So much for "the clear will of Congress."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 15:33:35 PT
Canadian-Made Marijuana? Like a Drug!
Seizures of Canadian Pot by U.S. Authorities Rises 259 per cent Since 2001Monday, January 31, 2005 OTTAWA (CP) - Seizures of Canadian-made marijuana by U.S. authorities have increased 259 per cent since 2001 but still constitute only about two per cent of all such seizures at U.S. borders, says a joint assessment.Complete Article:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 15:02:57 PT
That is interesting. I don't know why though. As far as I know I don't think those drugs are popular around here but I don't get out and about so I'm not sure. I don't read any newspapers from around this area either because there isn't any good online versions.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by global_warming on January 31, 2005 at 14:55:53 PT
re:Comment 13 -Anti-War
"George Soros said he embraced his Vietnam War Service but didn't embrace his Anti War Activism."From:
(Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
An Introduction Programming Manual )"The people hire the politicians so that the people can:  * obtain security without managing it.
  * obtain action without thinking about it.
  * inflict theft, injury, and death upon others without having to contemplate either life or death.
  * avoid responsibility for their own intentions.
  * obtain the benefits of reality and science without exerting themselves in the discipline of facing or learning either of these things. They give the politicians the power to create and manage a war machine to:  * provide for the survival of the nation/womb.
  * prevent encroachment of anything upon the nation/womb.
  * destroy the enemy who threatens the nation/womb.
  * destroy those citizens of their own country who do not conform for the sake of stability of the nation/womb. Politicians hold many quasi-military jobs, the lowest being the police which are soldiers, the attorneys and C.P.A.s next who are spies and saboteurs (licensed), and the judges who shout orders and run the closed union military shop for whatever the market will bear. The generals are industrialists. The "presidential" level of commander-in-chief is shared by the international bankers. The people know that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent), but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite.""Thus, a nation becomes divided into two very distinct parts, a docile sub-nation [great silent majority] and a political sub-nation. "A passage from a Pink Floyd song comes to mind, welcome my friend, to the
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Dankhank on January 31, 2005 at 14:49:43 PT
Meth and OK
An interesting article in the local paper, center-top of front page ...-- Meth seizures down; cocaine on rise --would like to link to the story, but our local paper has such a cheezy site that the first time you looked at it, FoM, you weren't sure it was a real newspaper and it hasn't changed much since then.Aha ... here it is ... ... it's only a photo of front page ...
Truth ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 14:42:54 PT
My goodness that is weird. They have controls on certain ingredients in my state and have for a while. Please keep us informed. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by siege on January 31, 2005 at 14:39:44 PT
This is different then radio.
It has been on the radio all day and they have not said any thing about "" close a loophole in a criminal law''''
all they have said is legislation to legalized.
It looks like some one has thing massed up again.He said the governor's legislation also would"" close a loophole in a criminal law'''' that has allowed some people making meth to avoid penalties by claiming that it is for personal use only. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 14:22:31 PT
I'm confused. That sounds strange to hear knowing how bad meth is. Is this your Governor in the article?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by siege on January 31, 2005 at 14:14:35 PT
Govern of tn. is trying to get legislation to    ""legalized"" ""Meth"" as of today. for some of the Sick and personnal use. 
But he wount even talk to you about Marijuana!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 13:45:06 PT
Just a Note
This war can't go on 4 more years. The draft will be back and the war would be fueled and it could go on for many years then. Many people here would have their children or grandchildren drafted and some would die. We can't wait 4 years. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 13:25:41 PT
I Just Heard Something on CNN
George Soros said why Kerry lost the election and I agree. George Soros said he embraced his Vietnam War Service but didn't embrace his Anti War Activism. I agree! Why didn't John Kerry speak out about the war? Whoever, if it's a republican or a democrat, in the next election the one that says he will stop this war will win. I have no doubt.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on January 31, 2005 at 13:13:22 PT:
My rosy shades were ripped from my face
and viciously stomped on by Watergate. I haven't trusted a single politician or bureaucrat since then. In the intervening years, I haven't seen anything but increasing infringements upon the rights and liberties of a putatively 'free' people, and the unbridled growth of that government that has been doing the infringing. But what alarms me the most has been the complacency of the citizenry undergoing this process. The sheep can see the shepherd approaching, and see he's not holding shears in his hands this time, but a straight razor. He's already used it on some foreign sheep in a distant field, and even though the pictures are being broadcast and sounds transmitted of the slaughter, they just keep bleating and scratching themselves, listening to the shepherd's sweet calming words as he wipes the blood off and strops the blade for use...on their throats. Comes the draft, and we'll see who's a sheep and who's a goat...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by CorvallisEric on January 31, 2005 at 12:57:13 PT
Lost opportunity
I agree that the Justice Dept. made the right decision (from it's own point of view) and it's good that a very "conservative" newspaper can clearly see this.But, it would have been so much fun to see the Bush Administration try to argue this case and lose 8-1 and to read Justice Scalia's dissent, his most asinine ever.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 12:12:40 PT
You are lucky you aren't from here. In these last two years I have seen our country change more then it ever did before and not in a good way.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 11:59:19 PT
Thank you. I don't usually have trouble but last night I couldn't sleep. I was seeing flashes in my mind of what isn't right and why I haven't figured it out. I know that this cause is worthy and I am dedicated to keeping it going. I feel we lost out one too many times in the past and we can't throw in the towel now. There is no prize for any of our efforts. The only prize is peace of mind and a sense of well being that so many people will appreciate. That's a good thing.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Deboche on January 31, 2005 at 11:58:57 PT
I agree with u guys
I want legalized marijuanait's harder to make marijuana available to who needs it, though, if we try to make it available to who just wants it...glad I don't live in america
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by JustGetnBy on January 31, 2005 at 11:48:44 PT
Rose Colored Glasses
  I'm sorry that life has stolen your rose colored glasses,
if they are truly gone life will never look the same to you again. Thats the downside. The upside is you will see your enemies and oppressors for what they really are. This not pretty, the things you will see and understand, but at least you will now see the evil that is done to all of us by evil self serving people. Hopefully this new sight will benefit the movement. FOM
I must tell you that CNEWS is an absolute gift to me and thousands like me.        
           Thank You
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 11:10:31 PT
What Do They Want?
The longer I do CNews and see different things the more confused I get. My rose colored glasses aren't on anymore. I don't like what I see either. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on January 31, 2005 at 10:59:46 PT
 "We don't want legalized marijuana"
 What do they want? More people filling up prisons? More people using less attractive mind-altering substances? "I'm gonna get me some Prozac and some Zoloft and some Vioxx and some Celebrex and some Nexium and a double dose of Xanax." "It was determined that the prohibited beverage contained methanol and not alcohol." Justice isn't blind, however, it's been blinded.So that's what they've been drinking, and they've got their 'Bill of Rights', too. WhoopdeedooHarumph, harumph, harumph 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 10:09:23 PT
Oh and By The Way
I mind that expression. I always take a deep breath and think here it comes. To me it's like saying that I am open minded and am very tolerant except ......Just fill in the blank.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on January 31, 2005 at 09:59:52 PT:
They're just displaying their bona fides
as handlickers for prohibitionists.How many times have we seen this happen? Never an explanation as to WHY they don't want it relegalized; just that they, um, uh, hmmm...don't want it relegalized. They have to show their corporate masters that they are adhering to the propaganda line to ensure their continued access to offialdom. Which knowingly lies to them, aware that they will never be challenged on their deliberate misinformation or that access gets cut off. If the spirits of Edward R. Murrow or IF Stone are watching from the Hereafter, they must be spitting on the clouds at their feet in disgust at what their vocational descendents are doing with a proud heritage of speaking Truth to Power.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 31, 2005 at 09:47:26 PT
They sure blew it with the last sentence. They had a chance to make a good point. It wasn't necessary to add that to the article. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by potpal on January 31, 2005 at 09:34:26 PT
Says who?
We don't want legalized marijuana...Free or drug free...pick one.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment