Federal Judge Rules Against Medical Marijuana Clubs

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 6/14/02 | Jim Burns

[Mo1]

THE OSTRICH IS BACK ..
We Are Almost there ...
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 A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Ken H]

Where did you hear that Amendment X does not exist any more?

According to the Constitution Society's website, it's still there.

The Constitution: Amendment X is right below Amendment IX on this page.

[VA Advogado]

As a matter of fact, since I served my country in the armed forces for nine years and was medically retired due to injuries received while on active duty serving my country, then I would say that I am more patriotic than 90% of the American population.

Sorry. You advocate the destruction of America through your drug legalization. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, any good will you've developed through your service to this country has expired.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Under which power can the feds legally claim a right to forbid the growing and selling of drugs within a state?

Well like others here have said, an amendment had to be passed to enact prohibition. And pot is a plant ferchrissake. At most, for interstate commerce purposes, the stuff could maybe be regulated when transported across state lines, strictly for control of agricultural disease.

But good luck now getting the FedGov to act within it's enumerated powers.

Dave in Eugene

[eno_]

We need some kind of "karma" system like on Slashdot, that way disruptors like the WoD whores would get negative infinity karma and the rest of us who actually want to discuss serious things like "Is the WoD a trampling of the Vth and Xth?" and what to do about it would not need to see their thread pollution.

[eno_]

At most, for interstate commerce purposes, the stuff could maybe be regulated when transported across state lines, strictly for control of agricultural disease.

Actually you are being generous to the Commerce Clause abusers: The Commerce Clause is intended to prevent states from making laws that impede interstate commerce. You have to twist that intention pretty far to justify the WoD, and I think there is a good chance it would not survive a USSC look at a medical MJ case.

[VA Advogado]

what to do about it would not need to see their thread pollution.

LOL careful what you ask for. You pro-druggie jokers might be ignored even more than you are now.

[mvpel]

Oh yeah, and isn't it great to see the judge, the DoJ, and the press tiptoe around the Xth as if it didn't exists.

Actually, they don't even bother to tiptoe around it - it was long ago used in the court's restroom after the illustrious judges had polished off a big bag of Olestra Doritos.

[Huck]

Actually, they don't even bother to tiptoe around it - it was long ago used in the court's restroom after the illustrious judges had polished off a big bag of Olestra Doritos.

Ugly picture, but effectively true.

[Ken H]

"Ugly picture, but effectively true."

Do you think we should face reality, forget Amendment X, and move on?

[Huck]

Do you think we should face reality, forget Amendment X, and move on?

I don't think Amendment X is going to help anyone undo any Federal law.

[bat-boy]

bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

If only you were king for a day right? You could send your goons over to exterminate anyone that disagrees with you. Spoken like a true Republicratic sychophant.

Your opinion of me and my service to the country means nothing to me. It is people like you sir, who are the enemy to this country, not I, and more and more people are waking up to that fact. In the end, you and your kind will lose the WOD, just like you lost the war on alcohol prohibition. It really doesn't matter though because those that use drugs are ignoring the WOD anyway.

Insulting opponents in a debate is a common liberal tactic used by those that cannot defend their position, and indeed, "because I say so" is not a defense.

However, I come to this board to discuss and debate the issues of the day, not read insults thrown out by hysterical men and/or women that can only argue their emotions instead of debating the facts. Hence, I am terminating our correspondance. Have a nice day.

Semper Suo

[Ken H]

With current knowledge and regard for the Constitution being what it is these days, you may be right, but that really did not answer my question.

So I ask again, should we face reality, forget Amendment X, and move on?

[max61]

Woohoo, I can't wait till you come take my rights away too!!!

They already have, didn't you get the notification in the mail?.

---max

[max61]

The life of a young boy struck and killed while playing at the end of his driveway by a drunk driver. Its our responsibility to make sure that NEVER happens again. Adding your illegal drugs into the mixture is only going to make it worse.

You are such a liberal in denial. Why is it OUR responsibility to make certain that parents properly oversee their children?.

First, had the child not been near the street, the incident may not have happended. The same can be said of the driver not drinking. However, children get hit by cars by non-drunk drivers everyday. The lesson being that parents should NOT allow children near the street.

Prohibition works so well, it worked extremely well for alcohol, it's worked exceptionally for nuclear and biological weapons, and it's worked well for illegal drugs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?.

You work for the Gov't don't you?.

---max

[VA Advogado]

You work for the Gov't don't you?.

Have you ever tried posting BEFORE you start drinking?

[max61]

VA, you should know that assumption is it's own worst enemy, I don't drink and haven't for going on 18 years.

---max