Marijuana Case Addles Supreme Court

  Marijuana Case Addles Supreme Court

Posted by CN Staff on June 18, 2005 at 07:24:19 PT
Source: The Ledger 

Washington, D.C. -- Justice John Paul Stevens won last week in a major marijuana case before the Supreme Court. Two seriously ill women lost, 6-3, but the decision against them was a bummer. In Gonzales vs. Raich , the Supreme Court produced a majority opinion that trampled upon some of the most basic principles of constitutional jurisprudence.These principles are embodied in the Commerce Clause and in the 10th Amendment. The former vests power in Congress "to regulate commerce among the several states." But this case did not involve the regulation of commerce at all.
The latter says that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The power to regulate the practice of medicine is clearly a power reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.The facts are not in dispute. Angel Raich suffers from "excruciating pain" that is relieved by inhalation of cannabis. Diane Monson similarly relies upon marijuana to relieve "a variety of serious medical conditions." When other medications failed, their doctors turned to California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The law authorizes physicians to prescribe marijuana for "seriously ill" patients and protects the doctors from criminal prosecution.In August 2002, federal agents raided Monson's home and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants. Raich is too ill to cultivate her own plants. She relies upon two caretakers who provide enough marijuana, without charge, to meet her medical needs.Two years ago, when further prosecution loomed, the two women sought an injunction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found in their favor: Their use of marijuana under a doctor's prescription is "different in kind from drug trafficking." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed. Last week's opinion in the Supreme Court opens the way for him to pursue prison terms for the two California women and their doctors. The laws of 10 other states are similarly voided.Justice Stevens' opinion is remarkably unconvincing. He conceded that "the case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes." Even so, Stevens found these "troubling facts" irrelevant. Well-settled law, he concluded, controls a finding that the federal act is a valid exercise of federal power.Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed a powerful dissent. Looking back to an historic case in 1937, she cited one of federalism's chief virtues -- that it promotes innovation: "It allows for the possibility that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."The majority's opinion, said O'Connor, "is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause." Applied to the facts in the case, the majority's definition of economic activity "is breathtaking." Indeed, the court threatens "to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulation reach."Where is the commerce in this case? O'Connor could not find it: "The homegrown cultivation and personal possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has no apparent commercial character." The marijuana at issue "was never in the stream of commerce and neither were the supplies for growing it." There is "simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users" constitute a discernible, let alone substantial market in illicit drugs.Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, pointed out that Monson and Raich "neither buy nor sell the marijuana" on which they rely. The cannabis in their cases never crosses a state line. Their conduct "is purely intrastate and noncommercial." Nothing in the Constitution provides a warrant for Congress "to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power."The defendant Monson cultivates precisely six plants for personal use. If this is the kind of "commerce" that now becomes subject to federal regulation, said Thomas, no meaningful limits remain upon federal power. "The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it."The case now goes back to the lower courts, but it is up to Congress to reverse the high court's opinion by reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule II substance that has "a currently acceptable medical use." Surely common sense dictates a sensible rewriting of a law that in its ruthless application makes no sense at all.Newshawk: MayanSource: Ledger, The (FL)Published: Saturday, June 18, 2005Copyright: 2005 The LedgerContact: voice theledger.comWebsite: Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Links Can Change Medical Pot Laws Easily Fight is Hypocritical

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

Comment #94 posted by jose melendez on July 11, 2005 at 19:00:15 PT
FoM: corruption does not surprise me, either
Superior. Right.\Phenothiazines.The unsatisfactory results observed with oral and intramuscular phenothiazines in the 1970s encouraged the need for new studies to examine other classes of agents, different administration schedules, and higher-dosage regimens. Structure-activity studies indicated that variations of the side chain at position 10 of the phenothiazine ring affect the antiemetic properties of these drugs. Agents such as prochlorperazine would be predicted to have greater activity than other commonly used phenothiazines, such as chlorpromazine. This predicted difference has not been established in patients receiving chemotherapy.Prochlorperazine given in typical oral and intramuscular doses in random-assignment trials was found to be less active than metoclopramide4 or dexamethasone , and equivalent to or less active than tetrahydrocannabinol. A study using intravenous prochlorperazine in comparison with metoclopramide indicated more encouraging results,45 but their use by this route should be greatly limited in that they have the known side effect of hypotension, which can occasionally be severe. Other phenothiazine side effects are similar to those of haloperidol.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #93 posted by jose melendez on July 11, 2005 at 18:54:45 PT
I wonder how many in White House are on meds
 From:,1,3827636.story?coll=bal-health-headlinesIt wasn't always that clear. Potential side effects may not show up until long after a drug is on the market, giving patients and doctors a false sense of confidence. Just last month, Eli Lilly & Co. agreed to pay $690 million to settle lawsuits alleging harm caused by Zyprexa, a widely prescribed antipsychotic drug on the market since 1996.Acknowledging criticism for its slowness in reacting to safety concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has taken steps to alert the public early on when regulators are taking a closer look at a particular medication. The agency announced in May that it would create a "Drug Watch" Web site where researchers' reports of potential side effects would be posted before the FDA or pharmaceutical industry have verified them.The recent history of antipsychotic drugs is a cautionary tale.When first developed 15 years ago, a new type of medication appeared to hold great promise of freeing schizophrenic and bipolar patients from the unpleasant side effects of the older drugs such as Haldol that they had been taking to control their debilitating delusions and extreme mood swings.The newer drugs, known as "atypical antipsychotics," act to block excessive production of two brain chemicals, serotonin and dopamine, which control thought processes and emotion. While highly effective in treating mental illness, they also carried some serious side effects.Clozapine, the first of the "atypical" drugs, came with a potentially severe complication - loss of the white blood cells that fight infection. Because it has proven capable of curbing psychosis when other drugs cannot, its use continues, though patients must have their blood monitored closely.The drugs that followed, such as risperidone and olanzapine, seemed to have fewer obvious side effects, and so were greeted with "great enthusiasm," recalls Dr. Anthony F. Lehman, professor and chairman of psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine."They became very widely used," Lehman said, to treat the more than 4 million American adults believed to suffer from bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.Indeed, with encouragement from studies sponsored by the drugs' manufacturers, some doctors even began prescribing them to treat conditions for which the FDA had not approved their use, such as dementia in the elderly.Troubling side effectsBut in the past few years, the "atypical" drugs have been buffeted by research linking them to increased risk of life-threatening health problems, such as diabetes and stroke.While most doctors recognized that many patients gained weight taking antipsychotics, researchers found evidence suggesting that patients taking olanzapine and similar drugs were more likely to develop diabetes and hyperglycemia, a related failure of the body to process sugar, which can lead to coma and death if left untreated.The FDA responded to these and other problems by requiring that warnings be posted on product labels for the entire class of drugs. By that time, Lilly, which sells olanzapine under the name Zyprexa, had been hit with lawsuits filed by patients and their families.One of those was Ellen Liversidge, a Silver Spring speech pathologist whose 39-year-old son, Rob, died suddenly three years ago of severe hyperglycemia. While taking Zyprexa, he had recovered enough from a long bout with bipolar disorder to resume work, his mother recalled, but also had gained up to 100 pounds. Though such weight gain can lead to diabetes and hyperglycemia, no one had warned him, she contended, to have his blood-sugar level tested.In the settlement announced last month, Lilly agreed to pay as many as 8,000 plaintiffs, clearing a legal cloud that had helped depress U.S. sales of its biggest money earner, which had surpassed even the well-known antidepressant Prozac. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #92 posted by FoM on July 11, 2005 at 18:21:51 PT
I know about Rove and it doesn't surprise me one bit. No problem since it's Bush's Brain. See why I don't like politics!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #91 posted by jose melendez on July 11, 2005 at 17:52:06 PT
Enough corrupt comments
the form truncated the link:White House on Treason Charge: 'No Comment'
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #90 posted by jose melendez on July 11, 2005 at 17:46:16 PT
missed the LAPD link in comment # 89:LAPD Chief Defends Officers in ShootingMonday July 11, 2005 10:31 PMBy TIM MOLLOYAssociated Press WriterLOS ANGELES (AP) - A toddler girl was shot and killed when her intoxicated father used her as a shield during a fiery gunbattle with police following a standoff that lasted three hours, authorities said.Police Chief William Bratton said Monday that his officers were well within department policy when they shot car wash owner Jose Raul Lemos on Sunday. Lemos also was killed; an officer was shot in the shoulder but was expected to recover.``You aren't going to stand there with somebody shooting at you,'' Bratton said. ``The person responsible for any loss of life ... was the individual who held his child out as a shield and continued to shoot.''The 19-month-old child's mother, Lorena Lopez, said she pleaded with officers to hold their fire.``He had problems with depression, his business was not doing well,'' Lopez told KNBC-TV. ``I told them that he needed help, he needs a psychologist, but please don't shoot. They didn't understand, and the police fired, like, 300 shots.''Autopsies will determine whether the bullet that killed the toddler was fired by police or her father. Police spokesman Kevin Maiberger said 11 officers fired during the standoff, but it was not immediately known how many shots they took.Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the officers were only trying to protect themselves and the public.``My heart is out to a grieving mother who's lost her child. My heart is also out to those officers who put their lives on the line,'' Villaraigosa said. ``Not a one of them went into that situation with the intent to hurt anyone. They were doing their jobs.''The standoff started when officers were called to an intersection in South Los Angeles west of Watts where Lemos was behaving erratically and aggressively.He fired at the officers and ran inside a fenced area that included his apartment and his car wash and detailing business. He had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun and was intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, police said.Police called in a SWAT team and tried to talk to the man. At one point, as officers helped a neighbor escape, he fired at them and they fired back . . .,1280,-5133941,00.html
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #89 posted by jose melendez on July 11, 2005 at 17:30:12 PT
Marsupial Magistrates Stay Execution
Perhaps this is what was meant by better angels:from:,1280,-5133958,00.htmlMonday July 11, 2005 10:46 PMJARRATT, Va. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court granted a last-minute stay of execution Monday for a man convicted of fatally stabbing the manager of a pool hall.Robin Lovitt was scheduled to be executed at 9 p.m. Monday, barring intervention from the high court or Gov. Mark R. Warner. The court's action was made without comment. - - -I sure would like to hear how Solicitor General Clement would align his noteless rhetoric with the high court's pointless reasoning.Let me guess: "No comment." - - -See also: "But they were just doing their jobs!"LAPD Chief Defends Officers in Shooting
White House on Treason Charge: 'No Comment.'
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #88 posted by FoM on July 01, 2005 at 10:29:56 PT
I know and oh boy what's next. Lord have mercy on us all.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #87 posted by afterburner on July 01, 2005 at 10:28:28 PT
We Just Lost an Ally on The Supreme Court
The majority's opinion, said O'Connor, "is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause." Applied to the facts in the case, the majority's definition of economic activity "is breathtaking." Indeed, the court threatens "to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulation reach."Supreme Court Justice O'Connor Resigns
By William Branigin, Fred Barbash and Daniela Deane,
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 1, 2005; 12:48 PM
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #86 posted by afterburner on June 20, 2005 at 20:26:13 PT
I Heard Neil Young Actually Liked the Song:
"Sweet Home, Alabama" and that Lynyrd Skynyrd liked Neil Young. I think they all like good music, even if their politics are different."Music is the universal language And love is the key To peace, hope and understanding And living in harmony." Mac Davis - I Believe In Music Lyrics
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #85 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 22:11:33 PT
I found something you might like to read. It was interesting to me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #84 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 21:35:22 PT
Do you mean Leonard Skynard (sp) I know they sang for Bush so he would get elected. NY sang for Kerry. They are just very different that's all I believe.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #83 posted by whig on June 19, 2005 at 21:30:40 PT
Yeah, they don't like Neil Young. And they don't mind Watergate either. They should drink less and smoke more.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #82 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 21:25:43 PT
I Think I Understand
I remember that song. They don't like Neil Young in that song. NY seems to have a bigger following up north, in Canada and Europe. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #81 posted by whig on June 19, 2005 at 21:19:28 PT
Re: #80
Reference "Sweet Home Alabama" which replied to "Southern Man"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #80 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 21:17:24 PT
I don't understand what you mean. I know the song Southern Man but he wrote that a long time ago. He can't really change it now I wouldn't think.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #79 posted by whig on June 19, 2005 at 21:16:39 PT
Homegrown Alabama!
Can't we all take a cue?
Homegrown Alabama!
'cause we all know it's true.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #78 posted by whig on June 19, 2005 at 21:13:41 PT
I hope Neil Young will remember....
Southern man needs to loosen up, anyhow.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #77 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 21:00:16 PT
I'm listening to Rust Radio and he is talking about how this song was about smoking weed him and Willie Nelson. Now it's protest song. It's HomeGrown! I think that is such a cool song.Homegrown's all right with meHomeGrown that's the way it should beHomegrown is the real thingPlant that bell and let it ring
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #76 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 20:13:14 PT
I thought you'd appreciate this. ‘I’ll Sit Down and Play’ Mr. Young and his wife moved to Kingston in October to be closer to family when his health started to fail. In an interview with The Whig-Standard, Neil Young said the song he sang at the funeral will be on his next album, which will be dedicated to his father.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #75 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 15:44:35 PT
Thank you too!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #74 posted by Taylor121 on June 19, 2005 at 14:27:29 PT
Thanks FoM
Cannabisnews has been added to my links section as well.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #73 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 13:20:55 PT
You know what. It would ruin Neil Young. Politics lack the most important element and that is feeling.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #72 posted by afterburner on June 19, 2005 at 13:13:31 PT
It Might Be Possible...
If Governor Arnold has his way.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #71 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 13:06:14 PT
That's sounds good! I just seem to care about so much stuff it's really hard to get into what a party believes and why it is so darn important. We could have a bomb go off in this country and we better know how to help one another and partys fight so much over dumb things I believe. Happy Fathers Day to you. How about our canuck friend for president! Neil Young! LOL! I'd vote for him but since that's impossible I'll just be happy to listen to him!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #70 posted by afterburner on June 19, 2005 at 12:56:06 PT
How about the Green Liberty Party, FoM?
Green Liberty, Lady Liberty
Lead Us Today
To Truth, Justice
And the American Way. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #69 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 11:30:09 PT

Thanks for the link. I never really thought Libertarians were for MMJ. I am not a Libertarian but much closer to a Democrat or a Green then any party because I care about earth issues like global warming and for those less fortunate then us and I am a woman and I think they are kind of a mostly mans party.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #68 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 11:15:36 PT

Glad you liked it! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #67 posted by Hope on June 19, 2005 at 11:10:12 PT

FoM...comment 66
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #66 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 09:52:37 PT

I remember fear of JFK being Catholic. The thing about Catholics and particularly those in politics it's a ancient traditional religion that habit keeps them going to Church and following the Holy Days of Obligation more then any other reason. Catholism and those that still are active in the church like the pomp and circumstance and that's about all there is to it.Say three Our Father. three Hail Marys after confession and you're good to go! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #65 posted by Hope on June 19, 2005 at 09:33:16 PT

Comment 59
Charmed Quark, I remember that during the campaign many older people were suspicious of his Catholicism, for the same reasons you spoke of. But after awhile I didn't hear anymore about that.I know what you mean about the Deep South. Most Texans don't feel like this is the "South" at all, as much as it's South Western or something. Although we are definitely on the Southern part of the map. We think of you guys as the real Southerners, the real South. Texas is mostly just "Here"...and "Where the West begins".I didn't see that movie that FoM speaks of, but I can tell it definitely must not have touched the reality of the way people felt.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 08:42:15 PT

Keep up the good work. I didn't think I told you I added your link you to my web site.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by Hope on June 19, 2005 at 08:41:38 PT

Whig...comment 55...OOPS...
I should know better...what with age and cannabinoid deficiencies and stress and too much Texas sun...I feel more than a bit "thick" lately.Sorry.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by FoM on June 19, 2005 at 08:21:03 PT

charmed quark 
You comment helped me. I have a terrible time dealing with hatred. I always wondered how the south felt about the north. I love the north east only because I've had the opportunity to be up in Boston and all the way up to the canadian border and it is beautiful. The mountains and the trees and the college kids made me smile. Some of my favorite musicians came from that area like James Taylor, Carole King and Carly Simon and probably more that I'm not aware of. Steven King also is from up there and I always liked his horror books and movies even though I don't like scary movies in general.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by cloud7 on June 19, 2005 at 06:46:40 PT

"Medical Marijuana Is Not a Libertarian Cause"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by siege on June 19, 2005 at 06:08:56 PT

The movie said he JFK was a coward and did nothing well. I was working at an IBM MISSILE base in calif. when the communists Russian was moving in the Nuke's with the ships to cuba...
THIS is the part they don't tell the people, 
Off of 4 IBM MISSILE bease's in the USA JFK SENT 80 IBM to Russian and waited till the could pick them up on radar then called Russian and ask them if they could see what was coming at them IBM's missils and to get the ship's out or all hell was going to go down. it was only minutes and the ships left and want home, and the IBMs where blown in the uper atmosphere. I think that LBJ's wife had a hand in JFK's death by what she had said in a TV program that she was on, she said she would do anything to have her old man as president of the US at the time. this is why they said it would come out in 100 years from that date and time.. so the govt knows who killed JFK, and it was not who is though of who kill him...they where just patsy for the have a cover up, for LBJ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by charmed quark on June 19, 2005 at 05:17:35 PT

JFK and the South
I grew up in what people call "the deep South". People were suspicious of JFK because he was such a yankee ( we could barely understand his accent) and a Catholic. People thought the Pope would order him around. But people had a tendency back them to stand by whomever got elected president. By the time he was shot, he was liked by most of the people I knew, even though they were ambivalent about the whole civil rights thing. But that had begun under Eisenhower when our local high school was forcibly integrated by federal troops, not JFK.I remember very well the day JFK was shot. Our teachers called us in from recess. They were all crying and told us what had happen. We were all sent home. Everybody was in shock. We stayed home from school until after the funeral. I met not a single person who wasn't extremely upset and saddened by the event. I never saw anybody interviewed on local TV who didn't feel the same.-CQ
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by Taylor121 on June 19, 2005 at 00:03:45 PT

Sort of OT, Sort of On Topic; TX Governor Vetoes
Governor Rick Perry of Texas vetoed some good bills that passed in Texas this session.Governor Perry vetoed:SB 1195—protected criminal cases made after police conduct consent searches at traffic stops by mandating that the driver’s consent be documented either in writing or on tape. [Author, Hinojosa; companion by Hupp, Dutton]HB 2193—holds accountable those offenders who deserve a more stringent approach to corrections while providing an efficient and less expensive way of handling those offenders who are not violent and hold the most promise of leading productive lives and taking responsibility for their families.[by Madden, Turner, Allen, Haggerty, McReynolds, Whitmire]More at:
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 23:56:38 PT

The International Narcotics Board
At least we know where they stand. A shame they pretend they don't know that cannabis is non-narcotic, being unrelated to opiates.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 23:46:43 PT

OT: New Scripture
We wrote it in code because it was illegal.
The high priests have controlled it since antiquity.
The sacred herb of the Tree of Life.Do you trust one, and seek to bring him amongst your brethren.
Trust him with your life and your safety, give him the peace pipe.
Then do so in the presence of those others, that they may know him.Of secret societies two there are, loving people and loving power.
And both say the same things, one honestly and one to deceive.
And you will know which is your own, by your own acts and intention.Do not think that if you have done wrongly, you must be cursed forever.
Deal honestly with yourself and with those whom you have harmed.
Heal yourself, and you shall be with us.This is our body. These are our sacraments.
And we are coming in clouds to end the rule of power.
Information will be free, art will flourish, and it will be a golden age.But for those who have ruled by force and imposition.
It will be as a great burden, and each of them in turn shall complain.
And they will say, look at all of this suffering, when they mean only themselves.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 23:43:33 PT

Hope: re: Good Grief
The phrase "all men are created equal" comes from the inestimable Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by afterburner on June 18, 2005 at 23:42:30 PT

Comment #38 posted by whig 
Thank you for the post. I was thinking exactly the same thing Saturday. The fear of limiting the Commerce clause and thereby jeopardizing Civil Rights is totally phony as Amendment XIV was passed by Congress and ratified by the States and gives the Federal government power to enforce Civil Rights. This is the way things should be done: if the Federal government wants extraordinary powers, it should Amend the Constitution and get assent of the sovereign States, as in Amendment XVIII (Alcohol Prohibition), Amendment XXI (Repeal of Alcohol Prohibition) and Amendment XIV. The overreliance on legalisticized budgets and taxation and on implausible misinterpretations of the Commerce clause is underhanded and dishonest. This is not the "American Way." We deserve better laws and better representation!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 23:37:28 PT

Good Grief, Whig! Post 50
I had some trouble with it myself, knowing that they didn't really mean all people were created equal, when they said "All men are created equal.."...I think...I don't really recall clearly right now...I'm so sleepy my head feels thick. But it still was better, with the rights it did protect, than what they are doing to it. I always think about that when I read that phrase though, and it makes me sad that I know that it doesn't mean what I thought they meant when I was a child learning about it. They really meant all "Men" and men just like them. So I guess it would be an exaggeration of it's "jewel like quality" to love it like I want to and like I loved it as a child.I didn't know any of what you are writing about. That's what the "Good grief!" was referring to. I'm frankly amazed at my ignorance. Well, I've always known I was fairly ignorant...but I didn't know all that you said about the slaves and chattel slaves. It's seeming vaguely familiar now that it's sinking in a bit, that I might have read it somewhere eons ago and it just didn't lodge well in my brain matter, but I'm not sure. Forgive my rambling. I am sleepy! The things you are telling me are so fascinating and I can tell you know a lot more about it than I ever came close to knowing. I hope I can understand what you are saying a bit better tomorrow after some rest.I'm looking forward to more of your posts. Thank you for joining us.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 23:14:55 PT

Thank you again, Whig...
I thought I was too tired to be "amused" at anything...but I was wrong."Special Bonus Commerce PARADOX! A cat is in a box. According to quantum mechanics, it is neither bought nor sold. Instead it is a cat commerce waveform sold in all possible states at the same time until it is confiscated and destroyed by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Cats."That's a great site. Thanks.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 23:09:02 PT

Correction on Roe
I meant Amendment XIV not XVI.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 22:51:20 PT

Re: They've trashed our precious Constitution
It's really not that good. The Declaration of Independence is a profoundly inspiring and incredible document. The Constitution, however, was a compromise that was foisted upon the states to effectively overturn the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation in what amounted to a coup. It had all kinds of really noxious language, like allowing slave owners to direct their chattel slaves to vote their preferences (counting 3/5 per each, but if a slaveowner had 1000 slaves that meant he had effectively 601 votes, compared to 1 vote for any non-slaveowner). I don't want to get too sidetracked into political history, but more to the point, the Constitution pretty well tended towards a massive central government to the disparagement of state and local authority and the rights of the people.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 22:45:15 PT

Thank you, Whig.
You've made some very interesting observations. Very interesting.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 22:41:36 PT

The wonderful world of commerce
I found this pretty amusing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 22:35:35 PT

Roe v. Wade and the conservatives
Remember that the "Dred Lock" decision, medical marijuana or even outright relegalization of cannabis is not the main issue which conservative voters and elected officials are concerned with. Their touchstone, base issue, is opposition to abortion. Surely, most of us here are fully opposed to abortion being recriminalized, but politically that isn't about to happen nationally. In the meantime, the conservatives are going to want to make more federalist (decentralist) appointments to the judiciary, to give states power to make laws regulating abortion and so forth. In doing so, they will appoint federal judges and supreme court justices who are more likely to side with the dissent in Raich.Since Rehnquist is already on "our side" wrt Dred Lock. his expected retirement will make little difference. But Stevens is also quite near retirement, and a change there is very significant. Even if he remains on the court past the current administration, and even if the next president is a democrat, he is going to be faced with a much stronger medical marijuana constituency that will influence replacement appointments. Heads we win, tails, they lose.As for Roe, a good argument exists that it was decided on the wrong premises, i.e., a fourth amendment argument. A different jurisprudence could "overturn" Roe but still leave abortion rights protected under Amendment XVI, for instance. But that's a bit off-topic for this board.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 22:19:41 PT

Dred Scott
The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford is an interesting one, where the court ruled against common sense and justice, and ultimately by their ruling *caused* the reversal of slavery in reaction. I almost wish that Raich and Monson were Rastafari, so we could more accurately call this case the "Dread Lock" decision. Still, I think the name fits, and I've been using it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 22:16:53 PT

Completely thrown away 
when the war on drugs suddenly made it a necessity to start seizing citizen's property as punishment and a way to make the drug war self supporting. As far as I know that never happened before the drug war for any crime. Failure to pay taxes, I think could cause them to seize and sell property that taxes hadn't been paid on, if they couldn't collect it any other way, but any amount they got over the tax assessment was returned to the owner. Drug War fever burned everything in it's path, including the Constitution."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 22:11:47 PT

Commerce clause
The further concern of the "liberal" wing of the court is in upholding the provisions of the "new deal" which could be struck by a more "federalist" (decentralized) reading.Article 1. Section 8. paragraph 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;Regulating commerce "among the several states" does not grant a general power to reach non-commercial intrastate activities. However, wage and price controls, unemployment insurance, and social security to name a few, are not among the specifically enumerated powers of the federal (national) government. Some have found a general grant of such authority in the preamble.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.If the court would apply a jurisprudence based upon the preamble, it could uphold social welfare measures ("promote the general welfare"). A strict construction would not permit this, however, because this is not a general grant of power given to the congress. So the liberals need to hook a more explicit grant to keep the constructionists on board, hence the commerce clause. However, three of the "conservatives" are off the reservation now, with Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas dissenting from the opinion in Raich. Thomas's dissent is most strinking, in which he even says:"In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 22:09:52 PT

I don't know people who have been raised in Texas except the people who post here. Since Bush is from your state your state gets hammered. I don't wear cowboy hats or cowboy boots and I avoid confrontation as much as possible. I much prefer turning and walking away when a situation gets hard for me to handle. I have a switch in my head and I turn off what I can't handle. I probably am a little crazy ( just ask my husband LOL) I didn't live in Ohio until 3 years after Kent State happened but it became my state and it was shameful. I actually was very happy when I read how many from Ohio voted for the amendment and it made me feel proud. I haven't felt proud of Ohio ever until now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 22:05:51 PT

re 39
God given AND Constitutionally protected right to use cannabis, etc.Yes. RIGHT!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 22:03:29 PT

They've trashed our precious Constitution
It was one of the finest, if not THE finest, documents ever drafted. They've ravaged it, against most of our wishes, and mostly because of drug war ideology.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 21:58:00 PT

Welcome to CNews. Very good information you are posting. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 21:57:13 PT

Right, Whig. 
Obviously the Supremes...because it's about cannabis chose to ignore that. I believe those "retained rights to the people" also gave us the right to consume anything we wanted unless it was another human being or his property. I believe our Constitution, by those words, did allow, in spite of what the antis like to spout, that we have the God given right to consume cannabis, herbs, poppies, coca or any thing we want, as I said, this side of another human or his property. (I wish I'd spell checked or read the preview of that last post before I posted and spelled assassination right. Assination? Sorry.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 21:52:46 PT

Court's faulty reasoning
The "liberal" wing of the court is concerned, rightly, with civil rights which the states in the past have been known to abrogate, and seek to maintain a federal (national) power to supercede state laws where minorities are subjected to oppressive measures. This, however, falls under the powers given to the federal (national) government under Amendment XIV.Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 21:47:21 PT

If anyone thought anything about communists at that moment in time, it was in connection with fears that Russian communists might have somehow managed to maneuver the assassination of our beloved President. Oswald's Russian connections were alarming to many who were victim to the Cold War paranoia of communists and Russians at that time.Everyone was so excited. We were so honored that he actually bothered to visit our hick state. We loved Texas and being Texan, but we didn't doubt that we were a hick, sun beaten, prairified state, for the most part, a relative wilderness to the rest of the world. We knew LBJ was a hick, too. He was often embarrassing to claim. But, we accepted it as a fact, he was a hick from a hick state and we were, too, and it didn't bother most of us excessively, most of the time. John Connaly wasn't as much a hick as LBJ, but he still qualified, just because he was a Texan. But he was quieter, so he didn't have to wear such a big hick badge as LBJ did.One of the reasons I think Texans are so easily despised outside of Texas is that we know who we are, we accept it, and we have few qualms about being too loud or funny looking and walking right into any palace anywhere with our boots on. We're a bit too brash and loud and confident and unashamed of our countrifiedness and people outside the state don't really like that. We had a lot to be proud of and a lot of good people were in Texas and came out of Texas, but we didn't have any problems with delusions of grandeur...other than sheer scale and open skies. There was a huge outpouring of love and excitement about his visit. We were thrilled with the honor and crushed as one with the horror and dishonor of the assination happening here in our home, when we so wanted to welcome him warmly and as grandly as we could manage.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 21:34:06 PT

Retained Rights to people, not to StatesThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by whig on June 18, 2005 at 21:31:55 PT

Not States' Rights
Reserved Powers.Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 21:25:04 PT

I've enjoyed this thread too. We didn't go away. We're still here. We still care. We often aren't as vocal as those who fight us but many of us developed our character because of that time in history. Peace, love, anti-war, fairness and kindness and yes sometimes long hair and even some with flowers in their hair. What's so funny about peace, love and understanding as Steve Earle's song says?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 21:08:11 PT

This evening, this thread...
at least until the moment of reading about that scene from that movie, has been like having my life flash before my eyes.I followed several links on that Ohio thread and it's been like reliving it. The sixties, the seventies. They were astounding times. Astounding. They made us what we are. They made us strong. It's almost funny, in retrospect, after reliving all this this evening, to think that the antis thought we would just give up, go away, and give in to their misled idea of leadership after the Supreme Court decision and the failure of Congress to adopt the H-R ammendment.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 21:03:22 PT

Thank you for telling me that. We weren't political in my family and I was a very emotional teenager and it broke my heart and it also woke me up to the fact that there was hatred that I didn't understand and I guess I never will. I don't like George Bush but I don't wish him harm. I don't think that way. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 20:55:31 PT

I can tell you right now, FoM, without a doubt, that scene in that movie was completely without any basis, whatsoever, in truth. It was made up for the movie. It was made up during an era, closer to now, that might could have imagined such a thing happened, but I knew the people, I knew the times and that never could have happened. No way.Everyone...and I mean, everyone, no matter what they thought of JFK's politics, was in a state of extreme shock and extreme grief. No one, not the crassest, lowest element in the lowest bar in the lowest part of Dallas would have ever said such a thing at that time. It never happened. Nothing close to it ever happened. It couldn't have. People weren't that way then. Not here. Not about that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 20:32:23 PT

Abraham, Martin, and John
Another song from that time in history. Everybody loved JFK. Everybody loved Martin Luther King. I watched the movie a while ago called JFK and something really bothered me in the movie after Kennedy was shot. People were somewhere in Dallas in a bar or restaurant and someone said good that he was shot because he was a commie or close to that and I was shocked. JFK was trying to help with civil rights and we stood a chance and the hatred towards JFK in the movie really rattled me since I assumed everyone just loved a man who was tryiing to help. 
 The south was sad too weren't they? I don't think I've ever heard a reaction anywhere about JFK from a person who lived thru that time but was from the southern states. I've only heard sadness from the northern states. Anybody here seen my old friend John?Can you tell me where he's gone?He freed lotta people but it seems the good they die youngI just looked around and he's gone
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 19:31:04 PT

 4 Dead in Ohio
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 19:25:22 PT

Selma dogs...
That was horrifying. I hate remembering that. Kent State...the lies about people having lice and being if that would justify their being killed.It's always been an awful world overrun with cruel, conscienceless people. What base and low animals humans would be if there were no one to resist allowing such behavior to continue unabated.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 18:42:51 PT

Lawmakers Trying Again to Divide Ninth Circuit
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by siege on June 18, 2005 at 18:14:31 PT

bill would require
The bill would require the Govt. to establish an independent oversight board to audit Govt's programs and investigate senior Govt officials, and an Ethics office to review detailed annual financial reports by senior Govt. officials.''Ohhhh I though that was the Constitution: I must be wrong''.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 17:59:10 PT

EJ I Remember Too
I remember seeing Selma on TV. It was a terrible thing to see. So was Kent State. So was John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy being shot and killed. I remember too. As far as blacks we didn't have any in our area. I've thought and thought but until we moved to Ohio I never really met or talked to anyone that was black. We had one black girl a year in Catholic school and she just kept to herself but no one ever said anything negative that I ever heard. She seemed well adjusted and was a good student. I lived in an area that were mostly Italians, Polish, Jewish and Pennsylvania German. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by siege on June 18, 2005 at 17:58:35 PT

here is one to play with
"We all know what corruption looks like, acts like and smells like. We've all seen corruption in the U.N.," said Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.). ""What is the different in them U.N. and Marijuana"".

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by E_Johnson on June 18, 2005 at 17:11:16 PT

I remember it on TV FoM
I remember very clearly seeing Selma on TV, seeing peaceful protestors beaten and attacked with dogs and firehoses.From what I had learned about Jesus in Sunday school, Jesus didn't care about race, and nonviolent response to violent oppression was something to admire and even consider holy, so that fixed my position on the issue.I lived in Northern California, which today has the rep for being very PC. When I grew up, even though there wasn't segregation, racism was a very hot live wire running through society.Once a black kid tranferred into my school and all of the kids except for five or six were really horrible to him, bullying and name calling, it was awful.And then I learned that my refusal to join in on this behavior made me the target of bullying and name calling as well.There were no signs on the fountains, but everyone knew where everyone stood. I am glad that I stood in the right place. But it was a scary place to stand, even in the Bay Area, in the sixties.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 17:01:39 PT

A little dirt and a lot of sweat
and my vegetable "manufacturing" has finally begun to pay off. We have been enjoying squash and cucumbers. Today I had a really great cucumber and tomato sandwich. Homegrown tomatoes are amazing. Peppers, corn, cantaloupes on the way.I wonder when the Feds are going to start searching out vegetable gardens to make sure we aren't affecting interstate commerce. They'll likely soon be "creating jobs" by hiring people to count the tomatoes and cantaloupe we produce so they can tax us and see how much of a tax break they can afford to give Wal-Mart, so that we can all be forced to be a part of sending all our manufacturing jobs overseas…and especially to China where they can force people to work for a pittance of what they would have to pay workers here or maybe even just use slave or prison labor. Prison labor really keeps the profit margin up for all the really “worthwhile” and “good” people.As soon as they realize our gardens are "cheating" wealthy
Wal-Mart investors out of some of their income they will be doing fly-overs to detect illicit vegetable and fruit manufacturing and we’ll get to pay for that too! Even worse, we are probably cheating the pharmaceutical companies and their investors by staying a little healthier.I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the day come that we have to register with the feds to be allowed to grow our own vegetables and fruit.It has to be Federal because it has to effect interstate commerce because the Raich decision proves it so.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 16:10:48 PT

Thanks Hope. My sisters, who are at least 14 years older then I am, remember segregation. My parents moved to Winston Salem, North Carolina where I was born and that's where they saw segregation in practice. My family only stayed one year in NC and moved back to Baltimore then they moved up to PA when I was around 3 and I don't have any memories of anything except we had a really nice black lady who cleaned for my Mom and she took me to the park. I really liked her. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 15:35:17 PT

In case you don't find time to get to the bottom of that long comment I posted about whether or not your untainted view of States Rights has anything to do with whether you were from the North or not, by the time I got through writing it, I realized it is probably because you are from the North after all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 15:31:56 PT

Global Warming
That message board in Fort Wayne is one of the deadest I have ever seen.Still not a single response? They probably fear getting Souderized by someone if they respond to your post.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by global_warming on June 18, 2005 at 15:25:35 PT

There Is Hope
In the South,Still, I have not heard from Indiana, hope they are all still alive?gw
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 15:06:28 PT

"Is it because I'm not from the south?"
Probably not. It most likely is being aware of the history of the use of the term during the civil war and watching the news a lot as a child during the civil rights era and the activity that surrounded segregation. That and the fact that I had been acutely aware of segregation since early childhood. I actually remember the "colored" water fountains and restrooms at some courthouse I visited. Because it seemed so strange, it really got my attention. All the people of color that I knew were wonderful, kind people, and good to me. They meant a lot to me and I really loved and felt great affection and admiration for some of them. I simply could not comprehend what segregation was about and deeply felt it was a great wrong based on some sort of stupidity that I, at that time, did not have a name for.Something that I was witness to here in Texas that may have had something to do with the interest I had in the situation was the mobilization of the military and the National Guard. Of course I didn't see it for what it really was, that much, at the time. It looked to me like a huge bunch of cute guys whistling and waving at me, more than anything. I didn't associate it too much with the segregation business because it was so stunning that I mostly forgot it was about segregation when I saw it. I didn't think too much about the fact that that was what it was about until I was much older. There were huge convoys everywhere all the time. It was amazing. Strangely, or maybe not so strangely, it did cause nightmares about Japanese invasions, I suppose for the reason that military convoys were twisting through the towns, cities, and highways seemingly all the time. For some reason, my dreams brought hordes of invaders, usually parachuting from the sky. Why Japanese, I don't know. I’ve told you before about the honor I felt as a young teenager, working summers waiting tables, at being able to serve one of the rather militant groups of black people that were traveling the highways and cities during the early sixties and making a point of going into eating establishments by the front door and sitting in the front dining rooms and requesting service. Before that, many black people that ate there came in through the kitchen door or asked to be seated in the back dining room for their meals. It was actually the “fancy” dining room and although it was never requested of them, they would request it themselves. I suppose they did so out of reluctance to bring trouble on themselves from some bigot who might be out front. I know it seems ludicrous now, but it happened all the time then.Sometimes I would discover a black person or family waiting quietly there, not realizing they had entered through the kitchen, although usually someone in the kitchen would tell me when they were there. Some establishments, not the one I worked in, actually had signs in their front windows proclaiming that they served “Whites Only”. That may not have been a big deal up North, but it was all too common here, at the time. I felt honored to be a part of the history that put an end to that. It still gives me chills to remember it.Living through that era also makes me completely sure that social wrongs and widely accepted injustice, no matter how deeply ingrained or accepted by the general population, can be corrected.My interest in the Civil War and the issue of “State’s Rights” during that era was likely because I spent time poring over the letters my great great grandfather wrote home during the Civil War. Historically, his having been my grandfather's grandfather made it seem such a relatively short time ago.I remember my Great Grandmother very well, spent a lot of time with her, and loved her very much and she was just his daughter. It all seemed so near to home and hearth. I have his photograph and knowing that he fought at Manassas and Vicksburg and all the other historic places and I actually had letters in my hands that he wrote from those locations when those things were happening had a great effect on me. This man that I could so easily visualize and actually read his words, in his own hand, was wounded and held as a prisoner of war and I knew all the history of that. He was buried nearby.All that made the history of it all far more fascinating than the "Beverly Hillbillies" or even "The Dick VanDyke Show" for me. We had, along with the letters, old confederate money, so it was natural to perk up when history lessons touched on that era. The contact with the tangible relics of such history made it all the more interesting to me. I knew that my great great grandfather didn't believe in slavery, but that he fought anyway and that was curious to me. I don't even think it was State's Rights for him. I suspect he went with the others to join the Confederacy because it was something as a man, at the time, that he was just expected to do or be branded as some sort of coward or slacker or something.After writing all this, I guess I have to say, yes…probably it was because I grew up in the South instead of the North, where I was born, and because of my age and that I was witness to all this upheaval.We can change things. I’ve seen the impossible happen before. 

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by runruff on June 18, 2005 at 13:57:41 PT:

Dear Jose,No I didn't recieve your e-mail. I would love to hear from you though and will be watching for a word from you.My e-mail is runruff yahoo.comNamaste.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 13:27:05 PT

States Rights
I believe above all things that people are created equal. I believe that states should have rights to experiment with an issue as long as no one is hurt by that experiment other then possibly the individual which should be their personal right in a free country.***All Men Are Created EqualThe phrase "All men are created equal" is arguably the best-known phrase in any of America's political documents, since the idea it expresses is generally considered the foundation of American democracy. The phrase in context in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, reads as follows:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 13:05:35 PT

States Rights. I never thought about it like you and charmed quark do. Is it because I'm not from the south? I think of states rights as a way for states to try something different as an experiment in democracy. I never was good in american history. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 12:39:31 PT

Charmed Quark
I have trouble using the term "States Rights" for the same reason as I'm sure everyone who remembers it's use in those days does.This situation is different, in that it's actually, this time, about protecting people from persecution and harm, but I still haven't been able to use the term "States Rights" in discussion of this struggle, because of the negative emotion it brings to my mind, much as "The Rule of Law" and "Because it's the law", also, now have a very negative aura to them for me. Now when I hear those terms used, it's usually used by a stupid, ignorant, unthinking, compassionless, idol worshipping (the idol being "the law") belligerent, blow-hard individual who doesn't seem to have a brain in his head or a shred of ability to think, who uses the terms to squash any consideration of right or wrong concerning said law.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Hope on June 18, 2005 at 11:49:28 PT

Please show your mate how she can keep us here at CNews in touch with what is happening to you while you can't get to the computer.You were on my mind so much last night. I was thinking about you, your wife, your vibrant, loving sister, and kept seeing the images in my mind you shared with us of your beautiful office. I felt some of the grief you are feeling at having all that torn from you by the circumstances you now find yourself in.You aren't a killer. You aren't a thief. You haven't hurt a soul or taken from a soul. Even though it’s happening all around us to so many people and it’s been going on for so many years, it’s still so hard to comprehend that such an injustice could be happening in this country in this century.I considered if we could all band together and surround you to keep them from taking you...then I saw in my mind what they did to the people that tried to keep Elian Gonzales away from those who would take him. Of course, we don't have a chance in using our bodies as barricades to them. We can't physically stop them from taking you away to persecution, and I wish we could, but we CAN keep working, as the conscience of this country, to see that the "better angels of our nature" (wisdom, respect, humaneness, tolerance, good will, compassion, justice, and charity) that Abraham Lincoln (not John Walters) spoke of, eventually take precedence in this country over the far, far "lesser angels" that have brought this profound wrong upon you and our nation and it's people.Please be strong and resilient.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 10:14:36 PT

charmed quark 
Thank you for sharing how you feel about states rights. I really appreciate it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by jose melendez on June 18, 2005 at 10:14:17 PT

We are here for you.I've been asking among my skydiver friends, several have agreed to put me in touch with some rather powerful attorneys.One jumper friend from 18 years ago or so is now a judge.I'm away from my email right now, but please do reply to the email I sent, if you have not already done so.BTW, the Chicago Sun-Times called yesterday and told me they think my letter in response to the George Will column that details which laws Walters is breaking "is fine," and will likely be published within the week.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 10:00:43 PT

When I told my husband about your sentence he yelled out not our Runruff! I said yes our Runfuff. When you feel you can talk and want to talk just go ahead and speak your mind and we'll all listen. That's the best thing about CNews people. They really do care. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by charmed quark on June 18, 2005 at 09:57:20 PT

States' Rights
Growing up in the South, I was not a big fan of states' rights, as that term tended to mean the abuse of people by the state. We had to look to the Federal government to come in and protect the basic rights of people. But now the Federal government is expanding its powers to abuse individuals. These things are always a two-edge sword. I like O'Connor's statemeant that individual states can be laboratory to try out different things. But no longer, apparently.One lawyer said that Congress can now pass laws against masturbation, as such behaviors might affect the interstate sex trade. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by runruff on June 18, 2005 at 09:55:34 PT:

Dear FoM,
I will be gald to fill you all in on my case. It reads just like a kangaroo court proceeding as all cannabis cases do. I mean how can you convict someone with a lie and make sence out of it.The thing is I'm still in shock over the whole thing and I'm trying to console my mate, the finest person I've ever known. I know you would think so too if you knew her. She is just a fine, descent and caring person who spends her all of her time helping others.I will write more soon but later. I don't feel so well 
right now.Namaste.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by billos on June 18, 2005 at 09:35:17 PT

.........Max Flowers................
You make a good point with the interstate and intrastate comment.
But how about the BLATANT hyprocrisy concerning the Supremes decision stating that possession of a handgun does not constitute interstate commerce but possession of cannabis does. How lame is this????
So yes...........we as a nation of people need to get together and re-read the Constution AND Bill of Rights.
I'm 53 y.o. and I am so upset, my people are starting to recommend counseling.
Okay, I'm not a stranger to counseling, it's the "adult" thing to seek when needed but I believe that there isn't enough counseling in the world that can make me cope with what this administration is getting away with and the recent rulings by the Supremes and the House.
It is totally unbelievable.
Let me know when you all take to the streets.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 18, 2005 at 09:18:30 PT

The Ripple Effect
Today we are having serious talks about our future. Not bad talks but serious talks. Talks that will change the future for us. Why I am saying that is because the whole Cannabis issue will have a ripple effect if the laws were changed instantly. Sometimes it's easier to do nothing then to do something and that's how I feel it is with Cannabis. The problem with Cannabis is our government can't hide from this issue much longer and yes it will cause problems but the benefits on the other side need to be studied seriously. Change is hard but change creates the future. We are such a sophiscated country that we should act mature and deal with it and look at all the potential of a positive change for the people.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on June 18, 2005 at 08:43:55 PT

Crimes against The People based on lousy semantics
These principles are embodied in the Commerce Clause and in the 10th Amendment. The former vests power in Congress "to regulate commerce among the several states."I would like to point out again something that was pointed out to me recently. If you scrutinize the language of that phrase, it says "to regulate commerce among the several states"---NOT "within the several states." Among, not WITHIN. There is a huge diffrence, and I think that many congresspersons are well aware of the difference, although pathetically, I think there many others who aren't."Commerce among" means interstate commerce, commerce occurring between one state and another. When commerce occurs within a state, that is intrastate commerce and is supposed to be well out of congressional/federal jurisdiction, and I think the vast majority of these so-called leaders know that and are ignoring it for various highly unethical reason$ of their own.If we are a nation that has totally lost its ability to even interpret linguistically and semantically the clear guidelines set forth in the documents that are supposed to be governing our lives and ethics, we are in a poopload of trouble, folks.Personally I think we need very badly to start from square one and have national, public congressional hearings to go over the Constitution and Bill Of Rights with a fine-tooth comb to iron out and set straight, in front of everyone, what EVERY WORD in those documents actually means so there is no more frickin' monkey business like this.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on June 18, 2005 at 08:25:53 PT

Plan for the Future: Buy Some Seeds
"Very few people actually believe the prohibitionist propaganda about cannabis, but without it there would be no Drug War gravy train. So many salaries and programs would have to be cut way back. A lot of people would have to find new employment."If they have future career plans, they should buy some seeds from Marc Emery, or other fine seed merchants, so that they can build a new career when Prohibition II comes crashing down.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by John Tyler on June 18, 2005 at 08:02:06 PT

Drug War politics
It is sad that over the past several decades the prohibitionist have so poisoned the political debate over cannabis that a sensible solution is now difficult to achieve. Now, it seems to be mostly about the money. Very few people actually believe the prohibitionist propaganda about cannabis, but without it there would be no Drug War gravy train. So many salaries and programs would have to be cut way back. A lot of people would have to find new employment.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Richard Zuckerman on June 18, 2005 at 07:28:34 PT:

What other checks upon Big Brother do we have?According to a newspaper article from a few days ago, Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from his Pfizer stocks, while refusing to vote for med pot! Note, however, the significance, because Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., is the only member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health, "representing" New Jersey!
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment