🚀 go-pugleaf

amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302070235.7623545d@posting.google.com>...
> justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302062111.54aff87b@posting.google.com>...
> > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302060506.17155754@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Joe Winett" <joe@vigoris.net> wrote in message news:<3e414659$1@news.vigoris.net>...

> 
> I have yet to see any evidence of this other than some quotes from his
> supporters.  I simply raised the question - was he in compliance with
> the legislation (not the proposition) in force in California at that
> time.
>  

Honestly, the best answer I can give you here is that I have seen
nothing to indicate that he was in violation of state law.  As I
understand it the law is particularly vague and no guidelines exist
for setting up growing cooperatives or distributing the product.  The
city of Oakland apparantly felt they were in compliance with state law
and no state officials appear to have complained.  Don't forget,
Rosenthal was actually "deputized" by the city of Oakland for the
purpose of doing what he was doing and was doing all of this
completely out in the open. He was a city official.

If you look into this you'll see that local governments in California
have been the only ones actually setting any standards.  The state
legislature has stayed out of it.  The governor is actually on record
as being opposed to medical marijuana or at least the initiative
passed in his state.  I suppose the state has in effect deferred
running the programs to the local authorities.

This is just my guess.  I've never even been to California and only
have cursory knowledge of their medical marijuana laws.

> > > As far as the federal law is concerned, its legality was upheld by the
> > > Supreme Court which is substantive evidence that it is a "good" law. 
> > > The US SC is the final say so on those issues - that's their job and
> > > whether you agree or disagree with their rulings, only Congress can
> > > overturn by writing new legislation.
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly which law you are refering to 
> 
> The DEA scheduling of marijuana which classes it as not having
> medicinal value.
>

In the context of this scheduling law, "good" is in the eye of the
beholder.  I'd say the law is a lie.  I'd also say that just because
the feds have a law does not necessarily always mean it applies in
states or "trumps" state law as you will so often hear.  This is not
exactly what the Constitution says.  But of course, what the
Constitution says is not so important as what the Supreme Court says
it means.  We'll see how all of this plays out.  I'm really hoping the
feds are pushed back on this one.  I like the idea of having a strong
federal government, but not one that oversteps it's bounds as
contemplated by the framers of our Constitution.