Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: atomic_dog
O'Connor/Thomas: "Why, lookee here! It's just two harmless middle-aged women trying to cope with their lumbago and gout, growing a little pot in a window sill box. How can THAT affect interstate commerce?"

Scalia: "Let's ask the 3,500,000 hippies, dope dealers, and Berkeley-educated physicians camped out in the backyard who are anxiously waiting for a go-ahead so they can shove 1,000,000 tons of legal marijuana through that loophole."

O'Connor/Thomas: "Aw, we're sure nothing like that will ever happen. See? The California Assembly promises us it won't. It'll only be used for serious illnesses like backaches. Not even a leaf or single seed of it will leave California and enter the surrounding states, and citizens of surrounding states will not come to California to be prescribed bales of marijuana they can take home in their car trunks. They know they would be in BIG TROUBLE if they did, so we're sure they won't do that."

Scalia: "You probably believe there will be no money changing hands either, no graymarket let alone a blackmarket for the stuff."

O'Connor/Thomas: "Our faith in tormented, suffering, pot-smoking mankind and in the good intentions of the California Assembly is unbounded."

Scalia: "The elected representatives of all the people, including the people who live in states surrounding California, had a different opinion about that when they passed a law to keep that loophole closed, and I cannot conclude theirs was an irrational or unreasonable opinion."

O'Connor/Thomas: "Aw, lighten up Tony, it's just two middle-aged ladies growing a little pot in a windowsill box. What harm can it cause? We're going to judicially legislate an exception just for them. It's the compassionate thing to do."

(If in the exercise of its "state's rights" California enacts legislation which has the practical effect of destroying MY state's rights, you can better believe it is a federal issue)

49 posted on 06/07/2005 7:20:06 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: JCEccles
If in the exercise of its "state's rights" California enacts legislation which has the practical effect of destroying MY state's rights, you can better believe it is a federal issue

How does it destroy your state's rights? They can possess it in California. If they bring it to your state, then they can be prosecuted for it. There are plenty of examples of something allowed in one jurisdiction and prohibited in another. Nobody has made your innovative argument before.

I really don't know how this could possibly destroy your state's rights. In what way?

50 posted on 06/07/2005 7:42:42 AM PDT by highball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: JCEccles
(If in the exercise of its "state's rights" California enacts legislation which has the practical effect of destroying MY state's rights, you can better believe it is a federal issue)

Gun grabbers use the EXACT same logic in pushing federal bans on firearms. Then again, most of the drug warriors on FR throughout the years have not been very friendly towards the 2nd Amendment.

51 posted on 06/07/2005 10:03:55 AM PDT by jmc813 (All I cared about was booze, stock cars and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson