Constitutional Conundrum - The New Argument

[Bass Akwards]

Agitation and education have their place, and the "medical use" dodge has gotten us this far, outside of California and the few other states that permit initiative petitions, the path to legalization will probably pass through the Federal Courts.

Previous Constitutional challenges have been fruitless.

Freedom of Religion? Not unless sacramental use preceded the law.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Tough luck, Charlie.

But now, the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner.

If just one Federal judge buys this argument, it's all over.

Here's the strategy, in a "nutshell".

The Supreme Courts' decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals ( 1993 ) sets the rules that govern examination of scientific evidence in all Federal cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

When the Daubert Standard is applied to marijuana, the evidence is clear.

There's no rational, scientific, basis for cannabis prohibition.

The Supreme Courts' 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas ( 539 U.S. 558 ) seals the deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

"The "Supremes" legalized "bare-backed buggery", and there's no going back.

Is "smoking grass" more dangerous to persons or communities than "bare-backed buggery"?

Does growing your own reefer spread STD's, Hepatitis, or AID's?

The same privacy rights extended to gays, also protects pot-heads.

It's that simple.

To get an in-depth view of "Lawrence", read the briefs, and especially the Amicus briefs filed for the Respondents.

( Arguments were in 2002, but the ruling was rendered in 2003. )

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/march.html#02-102

 

[JackTheGrower]

Good to see your thread!


On the moral support side we need only remind ourselves how we we have gotten here in the first place.

We keep on keeping on.

The debate isn't will we allow or not allow it's do we support the Cartels and crime over cannabis.

That is how I see this moving forward.

I am going to guess a full scale military invasion of Mexico is what they will decide will solve the problem but, we still need to man the resistance at home with HomeGrown.


Great thread! Remember that future of the country is not based on intelligence it's based on ignorance. Just look at all the "corporate" types who believe they are in an economic lifeboat because they believe they are better than the ditch digger.

We are all Cattle on the Capitalist farm called Earth.

 

[*mistress*]

..............

 

[Barnt]

Problem is, the supreme court can refuse to hear any case they choose to. By doing this they can prevent things such as marijuana prohibition from being unconstitutional. After all, any federal ban on any drug is unconstitutional because any laws not listed in the constitution are left for the states to govern. But this can only be challenged if the supreme court hears the case, and they never will with our current leaders.

The only way we will see change is state by state. Hopefully California will start the avalanche...

 

[Care Giver]

Agitation and education have their place, and the "medical use" dodge has gotten us this far, outside of California and the few other states that permit initiative petitions, the path to legalization will probably pass through the Federal Courts.

Previous Constitutional challenges have been fruitless.

Freedom of Religion? Not unless sacramental use preceded the law.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment? Tough luck, Charlie.

But now, the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner.

If just one Federal judge buys this argument, it's all over.

Here's the strategy, in a "nutshell".

The Supreme Courts' decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals ( 1993 ) sets the rules that govern examination of scientific evidence in all Federal cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

When the Daubert Standard is applied to marijuana, the evidence is clear.

There's no rational, scientific, basis for cannabis prohibition.

The Supreme Courts' 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas ( 539 U.S. 558 ) seals the deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

"The "Supremes" legalized "bare-backed buggery", and there's no going back.

Is "smoking grass" more dangerous to persons or communities than "bare-backed buggery"?

Does growing your own reefer spread STD's, Hepatitis, or AID's?

The same privacy rights extended to gays, also protects pot-heads.

It's that simple.

To get an in-depth view of "Lawrence", read the briefs, and especially the Amicus briefs filed for the Respondents.

( Arguments were in 2002, but the ruling was rendered in 2003. )

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/march.html#02-102

The problem is you assume the law is applied fairly.

Sure, it SHOULD be but most laws are arbitrary with no real basis to them anyway.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Oh I get it.. That we need the law to change.. Tommy Chong has it right.. All we need is to change the schedule from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 and it''s falls in place for us.

Right now it's stated as no benefit and high abuse. I have had medical for 10 years and I don't need to consume all the time. I don't get the high abuse argument unless any use is abuse as in "Just say no."

Well they also are spending 1 Trillion a month in War all over the world and at home.

So lets see.. Peaceful dreamers are illegal and murder in the name of American Interests is legal.

Keep the OverGrow going... These folks that are making so much war will have to accept George Washington's prediction that the Standing Armies will ruin this country.

As a side bit of humor I think I understand why "God" is keeping the planets and Galaxies drifting apart.. So one stupid species can't screw up too many planets quickly.

Oh this planet is doomed.. Hence the HomeGrown..

The California movement is muted by folks we would hope would support the movement.. Too much greed and not enough heros.
That's the thing.. Citizens are expected to sacrifice in the name of Country but the Corporate Citizen is only expected to make profit but enjoys all the benefits of Citizenship.

In a sense Corporations are elevated to a higher level than Life itself.
So we value the non-living over the living as our future..

But Fear not.. Think on multi-levels and act on multi-levels and know we are all ready for change on Cannabis and even with the history of exploiting ignorance of the people the USA has to accept that we need relief from the stress this artificial non-living future we are to craft under the direction of Economic and Legal Governments in the name of American interests.

I do believe folks want it legalized because they need an escape from the stupid reality we are all crafting in the name of economics.

People never started with a clear vision of where it would end up.. We are basically clueless on why we are here and constantly trying to divine the how we are here.

Oh enough ramble...


Ernst

 

[MicroDude]

There is too much money to be made by keeping it illegal. This is a capitalist country. Once it makes monetary sense to legalize it, it will be done.

 

[JackTheGrower]

There is too much money to be made by keeping it illegal. This is a capitalist country. Once it makes monetary sense to legalize it, it will be done.

California is starting off that way..

So there isn't any debate on which footing the "Legal Age" is starting off on.

But Time will prove it was a wrong step.. Then again I think the economic melt down in the USA is nothing more that placing a quota system in place for productivity on a Country level now.. The whole USA is now an economic entity in order to compete with China..

I am assuming the folks that have had the power in the USA are to blame for leading us to this moment in time.

We have stupid people in charge. That is a given. They have money and power and they think they are better than the rest and that is what makes them stupid.

 

[Preacher]

Don't count on it. This is more or less the same Court that said giving away medicinal weed using materials acquired entirely in one state and contained to it counts as interstate commerce and that's why the feds can seize it. And all the scientific research regarding the effects of weed has to go through NIDA, an organization that flat-out admits it's only interested in proving the harmful effects of drugs.

I can see how this'd go down. They'd line up bullshit testimony from government scientists, use that to call the defense's findings "ambiguous" as a basis of rejection just like before, and on top of that point out that they'd have to overthrow the whole Controlled Substances Act, which unfortunately more than one Justice considers "too big to throw out".

I've given up on trusting the courts to overturn general prohibition, the greatest good they can do is uphold medicinal use.

 

[Bass Akwards]

They'll have no choice ...

They'll have no choice ...

Problem is, the supreme court can refuse to hear any case they choose to. By doing this they can prevent things such as marijuana prohibition from being unconstitutional.

The Supreme's can certainly decide "not to decide".

In fact, most of the time, they let decisions by lower courts stand.

However, they are required to hear a case if there is a conflict between two or more Federal District Courts. ( Resolving differences between those courts is the Supreme's real job. )

Therefore, if just One sitting Federal judge, anywhere, decides in favor of the "bare-back buggery" argument, the case will automatically be appealed, and the stage will be set. It will probably take at least two cases to get the Supreme's involved, one for and one against, in different districts. ( They have however, on some occasions, taken cases on direct appeal )

After all, any federal ban on any drug is unconstitutional because any laws not listed in the constitution are left for the states to govern.

There's a long, long, line of precedent on similar issues, and it's a fruitless exercise to invoke the Constitution that way. It might sound reasonable to a layman ( or a militia member ), but don't bet your ass on it. ( That is, don't try that argument on a judge. )

 

[Bass Akwards]

That Won't Fly Either ...

That Won't Fly Either ...

Well for cultivation I think there has to be some sort of legal loophole in that you're not actually growing the plant but cultivating an environment that the plant makes use of.

Changing the nomenclature doesn't mask the intent, or the result.

All the "cute" arguments have failed miserably, and that's that.

Potheads have spent the last 50 years looking for loopholes.

"Personal Privacy" is the only dodge left with a decent shot.