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

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge Rules Against Medical Marijuana Clubs
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 6/14/02 | Jim Burns

Posted on 06/14/2002 12:15:06 PM PDT by kattracks

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

1 posted on 06/14/2002 12:15:07 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Thank you Registered!
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

2 posted on 06/14/2002 12:16:52 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Federal Judge Rules Against Medical Marijuana Clubs

Who cares, its not their call.

The State of California is obligated to use the full force of the State police force to protect individuals from harassment and prosecution by federal agencies.

3 posted on 06/14/2002 12:27:57 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Way to go Asscroft!!! Whoever said that states have rights was an idiot. It all belongs to the massive FED. Woohoo, I can't wait till you come take my rights away too!!!
4 posted on 06/14/2002 12:28:23 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I would love to see local law enforcement arrest federal agents after they have made a "bust" under State drug laws for illegal possession of drugs. No permission from the State, then they are not in legal possession.
5 posted on 06/14/2002 12:30:44 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I'd vote for any governor that had the ballz.
6 posted on 06/14/2002 12:31:56 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Way to go Asscroft!!! Whoever said that states have rights was an idiot. It all belongs to the massive FED. Woohoo, I can't wait till you come take my rights away too!!!

Maybe one day, a Governor with guts will say FU to the feds over one of these issues. I'm not holding my breath, but its a dream.

7 posted on 06/14/2002 12:32:54 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why is the government wasting time with this?
We are at war and should be going after the terrorists!!!
8 posted on 06/14/2002 12:37:23 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"Cannabis is illegal under federal law. The cannabis clubs are actually marijuana distribution centers. We will enforce the Controlled Substances Act," said DEA spokesman Thomas Hinojosa in a statement.

It's illegal now. That is the great thing about this Republic we live in. The PEOPLE will vote on it.

Majority rules.

9 posted on 06/14/2002 12:38:11 PM PDT by Fedupwithit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
The State of California is obligated to use the full force of the State police force to protect individuals from harassment and prosecution by federal agencies.

What are you talking about? California is obligated to adhere to the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, same as the rest of us. In fact, no new law is required in order to make medical marijuana legal. All that has to happen is a schedule change in accordance with the CSA of 1970. And that is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. These people need to talk to Thommy Thompson. If there is a way around Ashcroft, it's him:

Evaluation of drugs and other substances. The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance.

Controlled Substance Act

10 posted on 06/14/2002 12:40:43 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
looks like it's time to call up the CA national guard
11 posted on 06/14/2002 12:40:49 PM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: *wod_list
ping
13 posted on 06/14/2002 12:42:30 PM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Huck
To bad they didn't make an amendment for it. They have no Constitutional grounds.
14 posted on 06/14/2002 12:47:10 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
To bad they didn't make an amendment for it. They have no Constitutional grounds.

Unless you count the Founding Clause of the DofI, and the 9th, 10th, 19th, and 21st Amendments to the BofR.

15 posted on 06/14/2002 12:53:30 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: donh
LOL, how in the hell do you figure that? The DOI has no legal bearing, in the first place. And the amendments only prove my stance, that it is a state issue.

The fact that an amendment had to be passed in order to prohibit alcohol federally also proves that.

16 posted on 06/14/2002 12:59:26 PM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Except when one is speaking of a federally controlled substance.
17 posted on 06/14/2002 1:00:31 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: donh
Unless you count the Founding Clause of the DofI, and the 9th, 10th, 19th, and 21st Amendments to the BofR.

AFAIK none of those were invoked in claiming authority for the CSA or the DEA. Both were enacted/authorized under the Commerce Clause.

18 posted on 06/14/2002 1:01:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Fedupwithit
What are you talking about? The people did vote to make it legal. There was no vote to make it illegal.

Majority Rules

Not in a Constitutional Republic where the feds are BOUND by the constitution.

19 posted on 06/14/2002 1:02:09 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Wow, I didn't realize there were so many potheads on FR.
20 posted on 06/14/2002 1:02:22 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-137 next last

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.

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