🚀 go-pugleaf

justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302070700.134561de@posting.google.com>...
> 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.  

I am tangentially familiar with nevada Law and had he been doing what
he was doing in Nevada he would not have been in compliance.  No one
has bothered to provide a link to the statute that legalizes the
activity - my understanding from the lay press is that he was
cultivating plants for distribution to others.

>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

If the city had such a strong position, would not you have expected
that they could have/wpould have done something.  I know the court
disallowed the defense to present the evidence but I didn't see an
amicus curie (I think that's what they are called) brief from the city
on his behalf.

> 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.

That is a statement that I have only seen made by his defenders -
never from a city or state 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.

Sometimes the law is not logical and appears to lack commonsense -
though I firmly believe one persons commonsense is easily anothers
folly.
 
> > > > 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.  

In this case, it was the US Supreme Court - it would be their job.

> 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.

Which is your interpretation.  With 260 plus million US residents, one
could suggest that there would be about that many opinions on the
isue.  Currently, the only opinion that matters is the one rendered by
the US SC.