cannabisnews.com: San Diego Fights Medical Marijuana Law
San Diego Fights Medical Marijuana Law
Posted by CN Staff on January 19, 2006 at 19:02:03 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
San Diego, CA -- San Diego County will file a lawsuit that challenges a voter-approved California law allowing marijuana use for medical purposes, county officials said Thursday. County Counsel John Sansone said the county will file a complaint Friday in U.S. District Court in San Diego against the state of California. It will ask a federal judge to decide whether federal law outlawing marijuana use for any purpose trumps the state’s decade-old Compassionate Use Act that allows sick people to smoke pot.
In November, San Diego became the first county in California to defy a state-ordered medical marijuana identification card and registry program, ignoring a warning from their own attorneys that the action would lead to costly litigation. The Board of Supervisors voted the next month to sue the state rather than follow Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana in California with a physician’s supervision. “What the Board of Supervisors did is what I think is the responsible thing to do: If you think a law is not valid then you challenge it,” Sansone said. The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday that it was drafting a letter to the county warning that it would intervene to force the county to follow Proposition 215, which was approved by 55 percent of the voters. “For this one county to decide to go against the will of California voters, it’s unprecedented and it’s unconstitutional,” said the ACLU’s Anjuli Verma. Sansone said a half-dozen California counties, which he declined to name, had come forward with offers of support, although it was not clear whether they would intervene. The county’s decision to defy the state prompted medical marijuana activists to announce Wednesday that they would begin gathering signatures for a voter initiative to impose term limits on the five county supervisors, all of whom have served for at least 12 years. Source: Associated Press (Wire)Published: January 19, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Groups Survey Says Voters Oppose Lawsuithttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21467.shtmlSan Diego County Goes on Warpathhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21405.shtmlCounty To Sue To Overturn Marijuana Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21363.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #56 posted by whig on January 21, 2006 at 11:02:23 PT
FoM
"I know it's ok but legal things are not interesting to me since I look at issues thru my own rose colored glasses. The one thing I want to mention that I don't agree with is the statement that I am God. I believe in God. I have no desire to have His job. The spirit of God is in people but I don't believe that anyone is God."My point wasn't that everyone agrees with everything anyone here says, and I know you and I have discussed this before and we have different perspectives. My point was only that I can SAY things like that here, and if some people disagree with me, there is no judgment, just civil discussion. It's very much like a Society of Friends, with cannabis. Something that I think would be a nearly perfect combination.Language is a crude tool for communication. We can say things to one another based on our own contexts, but particularly when we are talking about things not commonly considered material or solid, there is not a shared observation that always allows us to know what the other means. Two people may seem to disagree while in fact being in nearly perfect agreement, but using different metaphors.I think this article might help explain my earlier statement:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by FoM on January 21, 2006 at 10:45:26 PT
whig
I know it's ok but legal things are not interesting to me since I look at issues thru my own rose colored glasses. The one thing I want to mention that I don't agree with is the statement that I am God. I believe in God. I have no desire to have His job. The spirit of God is in people but I don't believe that anyone is God.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by whig on January 21, 2006 at 10:39:26 PT
FoM
"I don't want to get into your and whigs discussion but I can relate to what I copied and pasted. I said to my husband just this morning before I read your comment that I don't know how to relate to most people outside CNews. I think they would think I was living in some strange world."This isn't a private conversation, you know. :)But this reminds me of something I like to do sometimes, when I'm in a place where I know I can be overheard, and I will be sitting with a friend, and I'll make very direct, pointed statements in a way that I know others around me may hear. When I do that around my wife, she says I'm fishing. She's absolutely right.But there are very FEW contexts in which I can express some of the things I do here, particularly without using lots of metaphors. There aren't many people to whom, or many places where, I can say things like I did above:"You are SOVEREIGN. You are GOD. All of us are. Right here. Right now."There is, if not general acceptance of this kind of statement here, even among those who don't necessarily understand or agree, a TOLERANCE of it. We are free to speak our minds here without judgment.The only constraint is that there are, of course, many, many silent lurkers who are reading everything we say. So we still have to be discreet about certain things, and I wish we had a way to talk privately to one another when we want to, and I really wish we could sit together and pass a pipe and listen to music. Even better if we could do it regularly, an observance of our sabbath.But the observers who do not participate are welcome to read what I say, these conversations are for them too. Because, yes, I am fishing.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by FoM on January 21, 2006 at 09:23:00 PT
Max Flowers
You said: I can't go back, and I can't stop caring about it. It's starting to affect my relationships. Almost no one around me even has a clue of what we are dealing with.I don't want to get into your and whigs discussion but I can relate to what I copied and pasted. I said to my husband just this morning before I read your comment that I don't know how to relate to most people outside CNews. I think they would think I was living in some strange world. What we are all talking about is freedom. Freedom to be who we are and not what they want us to be. It's nice to not be alone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by whig on January 21, 2006 at 01:40:26 PT
Max
"My biggest problem is my political consciousness and conscience, which was dormant/nonexistent for most of my life but is now in full raging bloom."Kind of like puberty, isn't it?I've been through that, too.Here's some light reading material that might interest you:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason_chap1.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by Max Flowers on January 21, 2006 at 00:45:31 PT
whig my man!
Thanks. What you have described is exactly how I've been living my life for the last five years (except registering to vote for Kerry, which was maybe not a good move in retrospect). Really, most of my life.My biggest problem is my political consciousness and conscience, which was dormant/nonexistent for most of my life but is now in full raging bloom. It is going to be very hard for me to go back, knowing what I know now. I feel as if possessed by the spirit of the forefathers (at the risk of sounding corny). Impossible actually. I can't go back, and I can't stop caring about it. It's starting to affect my relationships. Almost no one around me even has a clue of what we are dealing with. This includes my parents and most people I know. That's why I post comments and visit a lot here---it's one of the only places where other people "get it" and understand what we're facing. Every day I go on the internet and find a staggering, sickening new revelation about how deep the trouble is that we are in. Today's? I just learned that we have technically been under national emergency---martial law---since frickin' 1933!! And that it *suspends* the Constitution. Hey, great! And, I learned that NOT ONE president since then has been virtuous enough to lift that state of emergency and give up the special powers it gives him and the congress. They create new emergencies and pass it on. And obviously, no one in congress has been virtuous enough to point out or talk about this fact, which the average American does not even have a clue about.But mostly what bothers me is feeling betrayed and defrauded by my own country in so many ways, and hopeless having learned all these things and seeing that very, very few people are either conscious of the peril we're in or willing to do or even SAY anything about it. Yes, I could try to live the rest of my life here with my head down and trying not to get noticed, but I would still have to live with the sick feeling that everything is kind of a waking nightmare. I dream about what it would be to live far from here, in a place out of their reach, a place that actually respects freedom. I know deep down that I have a responsibility to stay and try to change things, but it feels so hopeless at this point... web sites are cool and all, but at this point it seems like we'd have to see three million people descend on D.C., screaming with pitchforks and torches in hand, to even get noticed or hope to get anything done.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by whig on January 21, 2006 at 00:04:54 PT
Max, to himself
"That's nice for him that the they dropped the charge, but he blew it. You should never, EVER...consent to a search. There's no reason to! It's stupid! It opens doors to the cops that would otherwise be totally closed (literally and figuratively). Even if you think you'll be okay, things can happen.... You just never know. NEVER consent!!"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.JUST. SAY. NOTHING.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 23:58:40 PT
Max, cont'd
"If I just say nothing, I cannot assert my rights and live according to my beliefs. If I can't assert my rights without landing myself in jail, there is no point living here any longer. That would mean that this country is totally alien to what I thought it was---which sadly, I am already feeling."You don't need to ASSERT anything. EVERY political system is alien to us. Do you OBEY this state, or any state? Should the state OBEY you?You are SOVEREIGN. You are GOD. All of us are. Right here. Right now.Now go SMOKE A BOWL and read this again. I bet you'll understand.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 23:47:41 PT
Max
On the other thread, I also explained why I think it's a bad idea to take a confrontational stance with the state. I'm also not suggesting that you meekly submit to their authority, and that middle-road is what I think you may not be seeing.So I can tell you mostly what I suggest and you can decide whether you agree.1. Don't vote. Don't register to vote. Don't campaign for candidates. Don't demonstrate. Don't protest. Stop participating in the state. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to pay, don't play.2. Don't file a tax return if you don't think you have to.3. Don't assert legal theories. Don't sue.4. To the extent you are under compulsion to PRETEND that you are an ordinary citizen, do so. Defer. Defer. Defer. Then do what you want.5. You are, right now, absolutely free.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 22:47:33 PT
Max Flowers
You're welcome. No problem.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2006 at 22:45:17 PT
FoM
Sorry, I double-tapped the button by accident... if you could delete one of them, I'd appreciate it... thanx
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2006 at 22:43:54 PT
whig
You said this in another thread:- As far as pushing things, I do think we should not be too timid either. If we are afraid to say what we think and act in accordance with our belief, then we cannot be free and we cannot persuade others to join us in freedom. -I like it, but isn't that a little inconsistent with this: - There is no magic formula.You cannot invoke any incantation that will make them desist.Do not imagine that you can outlawyer the legal system.Do not play their game, they write the rules, and they've been playing it a long time.Just. Say. Nothing. -If I just say nothing, I cannot assert my rights and live according to my beliefs. If I can't assert my rights without landing myself in jail, there is no point living here any longer. That would mean that this country is totally alien to what I thought it was---which sadly, I am already feeling.I have recently learned that I have, by fraud and mistake, been classified as a "federal employee" (with no Constitutional rights) nearly all my life by being signed up for a Social Security number. I want to change that so that I am properly classified as an *American national*. There is a specific affidavit and court process one can use to do this and rescind one's participation in the Social Security program (which is an optional "insurance" program). Are you saying that doing this will trigger an investigation, or just won't work, or what? And if so, how do you know this? I appreciate your cautionary comments, but I could use a little more foundation or something backing it up for me to consider it more strongly...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by ekim on January 20, 2006 at 19:50:30 PT
open society yes- thank you G.S. keep IT free-ALL
http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm
Ethan Nadelmann Speaking Engagement: The War on Drugs: 101 What is the war on drugs? Who wages it? Who is the enemy? Who are the casualties? Is drug use a moral issue? What is our obligation to users and abusers of drugs? Join Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann and community leaders in San Diego to explore these questionsJanuary 21, 2006
San Diego, CA
Ethan Nadelmann Speaking Engagement: You Had it So Good Until You Tried to Be Like Us Ethan Nadelmann, Alliance executive director, will be a featured speaker at Release's high profile Drugs University V conference "Criminal Justice and the Future of Drug Treatment in the UK." Ethan will compare US and UK drug policies, focusing on the failure of the US model.January 27, 2006
London, England
http://www.drugpolicy.org/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 18:35:26 PT
Max
There is no magic formula.You cannot invoke any incantation that will make them desist.Do not imagine that you can outlawyer the legal system.Do not play their game, they write the rules, and they've been playing it a long time.Just. Say. Nothing.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2006 at 14:07:40 PT
Or...
...to put it another way, how can there be statutory law in the United States Code that one can specifically cite to protect oneself, then have a court strike down that defense citing the exact same US law as "frivolous"? If the courts are THAT corrupt, it's even worse than I thought. The "rule of law" here means absolutely nothing now??For example:I, John Q. Doe, am a natural born free inhabitant and, as such, a Sovereign Citizen/Principal inhabiting the California Republic. Therefore, I am not "within the United States" but lawfully I am "without the United States" (per Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1746, Subsection 1), and therefore I have no standing capacity to sign any tax form which displays the perjury clause pursuant to Title 28, Section 1746, Subsection 2.In the above example, you are saying that the cited federal law will just be chosen (deliberately?) to be adversely (mis)interpreted by any court? They can't have established law in the books on the one hand, and then call a defense based on that same law "frivolous" when a person relies on it!! Or, if they can, and do just because they have the power to, then like I say, I need to get out of here because if the supposedly sacrosanct rule of law here has degraded into obscene meaninglessness, I can't stand to live here any longer.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2006 at 13:48:14 PT
whig
How do you explain all the cases cited supporting these things? There are cases showing these arguments to be "destroyed" (plenty in your linked doc), yet there is also an abundance of case law supporting the opposite. Why do the supporting citations even get cited? Are you telling me that there is no hope, that no one has a prayer (other than getting the F out of the USA) of getting out of the trap of being considered under U.S. (federal) jurisdiction? I just spent two days reading about the whole "taxpayer/non-taxpayer" distinction and have been reading for months about the larger issues surrounding the federal zone thing and how I was tricked, before I was even 18 years old and even knew what it all meant, by being signed up for a SSN into classifying myself erroneously through misrepresentation and mistake as a "U.S. Citizen" (meaning a subject of the federal zone, such as a federal employee---a classification that does NOT include enjoyment of Constitutional protections!). For the last couple of days I have been seriously considering filing the affidavit of recission to correct this. If I have no legal recourse (that will stand up in court) to this mess, I would have to leave because for my own sanity I refuse to stay and be some kind of pawn, wrongly considered a "ward of the federal state", liable for taxes that I'm not really liable for, living in the USA without any Constitutional protections (which to me would be pointless).
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 13:07:11 PT
Max
"On the merits, defendant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the state of Michigan and not a resident of any 'federal zone' and is therefore not subject to federal income tax laws. This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous." United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2006 at 12:29:34 PT
whig
If I ever come to believe that the Constitutional limits/federal zone defenses are now completely impotent and meaningless (how can courts deny basic Constitutional precepts and two centuries of precedent right there in open court??), I will pack up and leave this country so fast that all you will see is a dust cloud swirling behind me. The Raich decision is the only one I know of where the interpretation was so obviously anti-Constitutional. All the other cases I have seen cited seem to support Constitutional limits. If you know of landmark (or just big) cases where the opposite is the case, please post them. I am already in the process of trying to decide if it will be prudent to try to stay and help solve this mess or get out before we are all wearing GPS collars with armed goons standing out in front of our houses and at street corners, or before the whole place melts down in a catastrophic financial collapse, or something else unimaginable (for most, not for me) like that happens.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 10:15:10 PT
Paul Mitchell / Mitch Modeleski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Modeleski
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 10:11:21 PT
fedzone
For those who are wondering what Max is talking about, this is the presumptive origin of that legal theory.http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/I want to reiterate that this has not been a very successful approach, and I know people who've been burned by Paul Mitchell.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 10:08:16 PT
Max Flowers
Thanks. That really bothered me when they said that on CNN. Most people if you ask them in my state would be shocked to know how bad laws on marijuana are in other states. If they made drug laws federal we would turn back the clock and that really is scary to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 10:07:00 PT
Max
Be careful, federal zone arguments haven't had much success in the courts.Toker00:
"Wow, man, how much water did you drink?"I can totally see that. LOL.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2006 at 09:59:41 PT
Let 'em try...
- They said that after the Oregon ruling that they will try probably to get rid of state drug laws and make drug laws all Federal. They said that on CNN. -Hi FoM, don't worry about this, as the very idea is absurd and totally in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to just negate state laws and take jursidiction in areas that it (the Constitution) does not expressly cover. They all know this all too well. The 50 states are all actually treated as sovereign nations under the Constitution. The federal government cannot ever just rescind a state's right to legislate independently on anything (except the specific ares that the Constitution expressly states are to be policed by Congress/the feds: counterfeiting, piracy and espionage.Here's a fun blurb: Congress' enumerated powers did not include a police power.
It is axiomatic that Congress is limited to enumerated powers. M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819). The Federalist No. 45, p. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) ("The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”) By definition, to enumerate some things is to exclude others. The Founders listed – and therefore limited – Congress’ power to define and punish crimes. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 6 (counterfeiting U.S. currency); Art. I, § 8, Cl. 10 (piracies and felonies committed on the high seas); Art. III, § 3, Cl. 2 (treason). In each of these areas, Congress has a substantial and legitimate interest since only it may coin money; the high seas are of national import; and one can commit treason only against his country, not his state.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 09:46:47 PT
Sometimes
I feel like they treat us like this.
Cute Penguin gif
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 09:43:17 PT
Toker00
Too funny!!!"Wow, man, how much water did you drink?"
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by Toker00 on January 20, 2006 at 09:36:19 PT
Self-determination.
If a poor woman decides to terminate her pregnancy because she doesn't believe she can provide the enormous amount of money required to properly raise a child in this society, do I think I have the right to force her to bare this child into an already bulging lower class where they can be preyed on by our justice system of racism and intolerance and abused by the political system that allows elected schemers to siphon off money from our taxes earmarked to fight poverty but instead used to build prisons to house these poor people when they trip on the obstacles set in their way by this system of hypocrisy and deception?No. And neither does the SCROTUM...I mean SCOTUS.Did you hear the one about the monkey who was sitting in a tree in the woods, smoking a joint? A lizard walks by on the ground and looks up and says: "Hey monkey, what ya doin'?" "Smoking a joint, man, come on up and join me!"So the lizard climbs the tree and sits beside the monkey and smokes with him. After a while, the lizard gets the cottonmouth, tells the monkey he is going to get a drink and climbs down, goes to the bank of the pond, and is so stoned, when he leans over to get a drink, he falls in. An alligator sees this happen, and swims over to help the lizard back up on the bank. The alligator asks: "What's wrong man?" The lizard tells him about the monkey, and the alligator thinks this is just unbelievable, so he walks into the woods, finds the monkey, says: "Hey monkey!" The monkey looks down at the alligator and says: "Wow, man, how much water did you drink?"Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 09:28:15 PT
Whig
Down right hateful isn't it?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by whig on January 20, 2006 at 09:20:19 PT
FoM
"He had a bad heart and he asked if his heart would stop would they let him die? They said no. They would resuscitate him and then execute him. I think in simple ways and this also made no sense to me."Makes perfect sense. They want to kill him. They don't want to let him die peacefully. They want him strapped down, incapable of resistance, so they can commit murder upon him.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 07:47:42 PT
dongenero
Everyone loves, puppys, kittens, little horses and babies. They are so darn cute. Then they grow up and aren't worth much. It really is wrong how they think.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by dongenero on January 20, 2006 at 07:42:02 PT
women's rights
It's interesting that you have these people that are opposed to a woman's right to choose.
Once the baby is born though, are these same people pushing for welfare, health care and educational assistance? No.However, they are usually for the death penalty once they are an adult.I think most of these people don't spend much time in deep thought.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by FoM on January 20, 2006 at 06:42:58 PT
lombar
They hate people who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion but in the end they will pull the plug. Money is the rule of what drives our leaders. I have nothing against money but when money drives what are immoral decisions then it goes too far.My husband read a portion of an article to me the other day. It was about the old man they executed in California. He had a bad heart and he asked if his heart would stop would they let him die? They said no. They would resuscitate him and then execute him. I think in simple ways and this also made no sense to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by lombar on January 20, 2006 at 06:32:23 PT
I found that very disturbing
and I am sure more Canadians would be shocked to realize that may happen here if we 'privatize' the system. (ie give benefits to rich third parties who actually add no value to the system but take value out in profits)My gut reaction was they have plenty of money to persecute people but none to ease suffering. It renders any talk of God meaningless when it comes out of Bush. They thrive on conflict and suffering and call it good... it makes me sick. Why intervene when a woman is vegatative yet sign law that pulls the plug on poor simply because they can't afford to pay. The manner of death was particularly unpleasant, 16 minutes of suffocation, how callous is THAT!?!? They have more mercy on condemned prisoners, what does that say? What value has a persons life? Not much apparently. I was really mad when I read that...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 20, 2006 at 04:28:24 PT
Bring It On San Diego
Good! They have no idea what they're doing. Let's go to the Supreme Court with this case. Let this case be the one that affirms a State's right to pass it's own laws and shut's up state and local governments forever. Why don't the San Diego citizens recall or sensure their county officials?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by whig on January 19, 2006 at 22:54:58 PT
no pain at the moment
Just really icky discomfort. But thanks for the well wishes.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 22:48:28 PT
whig
I'm sorry to read that. Ear infections can be really painful and hard to clear up. Good luck to you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by whig on January 19, 2006 at 22:44:53 PT
FoM
I have had allergy to Augmentin (amoxicillin/clavulanate) and presumably all penicillin derivatives.Right now I have an ear infection, too, so I've been on Levaquin (levofloxacin) for over a week and it's doing no good (but at least no allergy -- and I do have benedryl if I need it). I was told on Tuesday I may have to have tubes put in my ears to drain the fluid if it didn't clear up soon, and it shows no signs of getting better.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 22:27:29 PT
whig
It really is ok. I only mention his experience because of the article lombar posted. I think that I have seen so much that is why shocking me is very hard. You probably won't believe me when I say my son had a reaction to a drug called Bactrim. That was the first drug he received when he got his first bout of PCP. Good radio show. I'm listening to it now. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by BUDSNAXZ on January 19, 2006 at 22:24:50 PT
OT sort of
I just read through Lorretta Nalls blogspot and found out something amazing. I had not even put 2 and 2 together until I read it. I just happen to be visiting Montgomery AL. for the next 5 weeks and she will be speaking in Wetumpka (a short drive away) this Monday night. I am going to see her speech and meet her. This is just too cool!!!!Mac
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by whig on January 19, 2006 at 22:14:20 PT
FoM
I'm truly sorry.You might want to listen to thishttp://www.breakfornews.com/audio/InsideTrackNews051202.mp3
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 21:42:40 PT
Whig
I don't doubt that. The drugs shortened his life. I don't know by how much but he went down hill when he finally started on Protease Inhibitors.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by whig on January 19, 2006 at 21:40:06 PT
FoM
Btw, I suspect AZT is one of the most pathologic examples of allopathic poison.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 21:28:16 PT
lombar
I am not shocked because this happened to me. My son was rushed to the hospital with PCP and they put in a breathing tube. He didn't want one and yet he couldn't breath so he agreed. I was called to the hospital which was in Philly and I was in Ohio. We got out the door as fast as we could but the doctor had a party to go to and he wasn't going to wait for us to get there to pull the plug. 400 miles and when we finally got their his partner came out and said the doctor was to busy and had a party to attend so he left the job for a nurse or someone other then him. My son fought so hard even though he was sedated that they couldn't turn it off. I stayed a few days and left because it was too hard to see him that way. The good part was I was at home waiting for the call that I dreaded and when the call came it was my son. He said Hi Mom how are you! I almost fainted. He lived a few more months and we swore he would die in his bed at his home and never go back to the hospital and he didn't. That's why it didn't shock me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 21:08:37 PT
lombar
I believe that article. It doesn't surprise me and I wish it did. Soon will it be Soylent Green?With the attack on the homeless it reminded me of the opening of the movie Clockwork Orange and gave me a chill.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by whig on January 19, 2006 at 21:08:37 PT
This just has to speak for itself
"...invoking a law signed in 1999 by George W. Bush, then governor of Texas. The law relieved doctors of an obligation to provide life-sustaining treatment 10 days after having provided formal notice..."I'm at a loss for words here....
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 20:59:09 PT
lombar
I can't snip it after it's posted because it is all in html and I could make a mistake trying to do it that way. I'll remove the post and leave the link.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by lombar on January 19, 2006 at 20:50:27 PT
Ooops sorry I meant to clip that
Sorry about that ... please snip it...
Weighing the True Costs and Benefits in a Matter of Life and Death
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by museman on January 19, 2006 at 20:37:54 PT:
Paradigm shift, or..
Smoke and mirrors? I don't know about the American Dynasties so much (other than they are there), but the spirit that occupies the economic/political throne is the same as it always was.The powers that rule this planet, that promote war, destruction, pestilence, and death, farm human emotion like vampires. They orchestrate so much, if it weren't for the clarity of nature as a contrast they would surely be believed as gods. Wicked demonic gods playing with human lives like carved pieces on an elaborate board game.
http://wholeearthfamily.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 20:25:37 PT
museman
Since music is your calling did you know that Neil had The Fisk Jubilee Singers record Prairie Wind with him? They sang When God Made Me with Neil. I expect they will tour with him if he does a tour for Prairie Wind. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/singers/timeline/index.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 20:11:08 PT
museman
You know I get what you are saying. Before I did CNews, which has been for over 7 years, and before the Internet I had no idea about slavery or any of it. I knew about it as history but that was all. I was born in the south but was raised in PA. I didn't know any black people and so none of the state rights issue came to my mind. We have people here and for a long time that are from the south and I've learned about slavery and why it was all wrong and why the south was angry. It is so complicated and I wonder why the south votes for republicans since the south seems to not want to be imposed on by the north and yet they vote for a republican. I am very confused a lot of the time about this.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by museman on January 19, 2006 at 20:01:01 PT:
The preceding '60s
Of the 1860's that is. There was a little issue that was being fought out state by state. It was painted with the horrible images (very real) of slavery and each state initially decided for or against. The issue which caused all the resulting uproar was whether or not the states had the right to choose legislation about the issue of slavery.The Republicans of that era pulled a coup by writing the first Constitutional Ammendment NOT RATIFIED by the states. They set the precedent there and then for what is happening right now. Historicly we all get the political right story of it, the conquerors view. Though I personally don't subscribe to the point of view, It's easy to see why there is still some southern angst about it all.It's an old game. The Kings and princes of Babylon, and Sumeria used it, Royal Dynasty since Ancient Egypt has played it.First of all; keep the masses ignorant.Second; keep their bellies full enough.Third; ENTERTAINMENT!Subterfuge and distraction. Great amounts of time and resource go into this. Plans and devices of action are results in so many ways of careful use of time, placement, and planning.Oh it just goes on and on.
http://wholeearthfamily.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by ekim on January 19, 2006 at 19:27:37 PT
hey we got Nall Y'all :)))))))
please see Libbys site for this great little peice.
be sure to read the Grandma one tooooooooooo.
Sign of the times Nall Y'all--http://lastonespeaks.blogspot.com/ If you live in Alabama you can get one of these bad boys
=================================
Plummeting Arrest Clearance Rates -- a victim of the drug war?
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/
This could be huge. Former NY state criminal justice official Scott Christianson takes a different look at crime statistics in today's Christian Science Monitor.
Christianson first notes that violent crime has been falling, particularly in the past 10 years, and in some cases has reached its lowest point in 40 years.And yet...
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 19:23:27 PT
whig
Yes, I sure agree with you. I really am angry and I don't get angry very often. I am offended too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by whig on January 19, 2006 at 19:18:08 PT
Desperation
They are flailing wildly now, and in fact the massive power-grab underway in the executive branch is part of their desperate fight for political survival. The internet is like the veins of a new social organism, a communications infrastructure like the world has never seen before, a sheer bypass of the traditional ways in which power was held through control of information (and disinformation).
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 19, 2006 at 19:05:02 PT
I See
What I am beginning to think is that those in power know their time is short because of elections this November and they want to turn everything they can back before they won't be in office. They said that after the Oregon ruling that they will try probably to get rid of state drug laws and make drug laws all Federal. They said that on CNN.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment