Posted on 01/31/2003 9:12:22 AM PST by Wolfie
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
References to medical uses quickly squelched in federal court.
The Bay Area's first federal medical marijuana trial ended Thursday with a bizarre touch that symbolized the entire case: The judge took over questioning of a defense witness to make sure he didn't refer to the medical use of marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Just his thoughts? Methinks there's some overcompensation going on, too.
This is not surprising as it is the final argument of all tyrants.
Dane, Jihadi and the rest of the little government rah-rah squad do not differ from Hillary at all in their philosophy of rights - merely the application of that philosophy to differing political goals:
The laws apply to little people, not to Drug Czars, police or government officers.
The Constitution is a living document, and the founders views do not matter.
You are not entitled to invoke rights, merely follow what you are told is the law.
You may not exercise state's rights if the Fed says no.
Force will be used to make you comply, and we'll be gleeful about it.
The representative of law is always right, and the peasant is always wrong.
I am STILL trying to figure out why a group that IS PRO STATIST at every opportunity, is allowed to TROLL the forum. How is this any different from having Hillary here?
Check their posts - cops shoot someone, no problem. cops shoot dog, no problem. Drug war kills a kid accidently, no problem Etc, etc.. It's all the same and any viewer who doesn't KNOW these people can easily do searches on their posts to discover their motives.
I'd ask for G_d to have mercy on your soul, but I doubt if you've even got one.
Let's keep going. The State authorized the City of Oakland and the people of California authorized the State. That would make the people of California drug kingpins under federal law and doesn't federal law call for the death penalty for drug kingpins?
If the feds don't go after the people of CA then the law is being applied selectively. Isn't that against federal law?
Why yes it is ! Under the 14th Amendment!
America has a government of laws and elected representatives, not "nationwide referendums."
SECTION 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, ''primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.SEC. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
How?
So there are no unjust laws? Seems like it is once again your side that is doing the creative arguing.
My personal favorite is, "The Holy Spirit told me that drugs were bad," followed by, "Trust me, I'm right on this." How long to get there? Do I have to put it somewhere so that you can cut and paste it?
Please at least use an argument that you're willing to stand behind; if this had been the guys doctor, you'd still be calling for us to strap him into "Roscoe's pothead electric chair."
So other than "the law" who is victimized when someone is growing pot and giving it to med patients?
Quote me.
Meathead statement of the day. Don't question just follow . . . comrade
These tactics will not be lost on the jury, and I would think that the judge screwed the prosecution in this regard. I'm looking for a jury nullification here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.