Medical marijuana groups post 'not a criminal' billboards

Modesto Bee ^ | 1/23/03 | AP

[Roscoe]

What gives you the right to dictate what medicine I can or cannot use?

I don't.

Now it's my turn. Do you have a single court decision supporting the position that laws restricting drugs are unconstitutional?

[Roscoe]

only militas are protected by the 2nd

False.

[Roscoe]

[Ignorance is curable.]

Stupidity isn't.

You've proven that.

[tpaine]

My point.

[tpaine]

No need, we have the constitution.

[philman_36]

You've proven that.
How so?

[philman_36]

Which is the same position roscoe-ites & the 9th Circuit totally repudiate in the recent RKBA's decision, claiming that only militas are protected by the 2nd, and that states can prohibit guns.
(snort)
You just used..."only militas are protected by the 2nd"...
...and then say "False"?!
And you say "You've proven that." to me?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
So are you saying that the 2nd does apply to individuals and that States can't prohibit guns?

[Roscoe]

Are you stoned again?

[tpaine]

You're busted again, roscoe. - Pitiful.

[philman_36]

Are you stoned again?
Are you stupid again?

[Ken H]

Now that I've answered your question, I'd appreciate an answer to my question from post #209.

[Sparta]

Tell me where in the Consititution does it justify the Federal War on Drugs? I can tell two amendments that make WOD unconstitutional (Fourth and Tenth).

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Well, it's a religion on this board.

No, it's not. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

[robertpaulsen]

"IMHO there are much more important battles to be fought, such as curtailing abortion, or fighting for tax reform, or for 2nd Amendment rights, or immigration control, or for that matter, waging the war against terrorism for the very survival of our nation."

On this, we agree.

[William Terrell]

Medical Marijuana is a falsehood.

And if it is, so what? What's wrong with it, and further, what's wrong with deliberately giving yourself a mild euphoria just because you want to and no other reason?

[newcats]

Sorry that I had you confused with another person.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Backwards. The court was following universally held precedents.

"Universally held precedents" do not trump the US constitution. Where did you learn civics? From a cereal box? Oh, and posting something twice doesn't make it any more correct. Why won't you tell us how growing a plant fits the definition of interstate commerce? If all of these precedents are founded in sound constitutional judgement, just tell us how the decisions are sound. It should be easy. Connect the dots: grow plant >> ? >> interstate commerce. C'mon Roscoe, fill it in.

[Kerberos]

"I've never listened to his show, visited his Web site (if he has one)"

He does have a site and you really should visit it sometime. He does some great writing exposing the hypocrisy of modern day conservatism, especially as it relates to the WOD, but he also produces some articles on how most of the Republican programs are really just more socialist programs packaged a different way.

Boortz Website

Nealz Nuse

[newcats]

But if you do drugs, you are supporting terrorists!! I know because the gooberment told me on TV, and you know the gooberment would never ever lie to us.
So the money I use to purchase some very fine, hydroponiclly grown in a neighboring state smoke, is finding it's way into the hands of Osama? Please explain this route to me....

[tacticalogic]

The court was following universally held precedents.

Then, once a Constitutional principle has been sufficiently violated we should feel bound to continue violating it? We have less than seventy years of "precedent" to support the expanded reading of the Commerce Clause. We have over one hundred and fifty years of precedent that opposes it.