🚀 go-pugleaf

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>...
> > > >> 12 jurors, and not one with the common sense God gave an ant.
> > > >
> > > > No, they decided the case based on the evidence presented.   The
> > > > jurors might feel bad now, but they shouldn't -- they did what they
> > > > had to do.
> > >
> > > No court can make someone convict somebody of a bad law. If I were on such
> > > a jury, I would nullify.
> > 
> > Well, sure you would.  That's why the judge didn't allow admission of the
> > fact that he was growing in compliance with California law.
> 
> I'm not sure that what he was doing was in compliance with California
> law.  The evidence the defense wanted to present was that what he was
> doing was concistent with the intent of the passed proposition.  The
> same thing is happening in Nevada - there is no prohibition against
> cultivation and possession but there is a prohibition against
> distribution.  The California case was not a possession case, it was
> the intent to distribute that was at issue.

Of course what he was doing was in compliance with state law.  He even
had the blessing of city officials who had deputized him and made him
an officer of the city for the purpose of growing marijuana.  His
facilities had been inspected and were up to code and local law
enforcement was perfectly aware of what he was doing.  Certainly it
was all at least under the color of law.
 
> 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 but I don't think
all of the issues in this case have been tested by the Supremes.  Alan
Dershowitz seems to think there is a good chance this decision could
be overturned in our highest Court on the issue of whether the
Commerce Clause provides authority for the federal government to
dictate whether a state can have a medical marijuana program. I'd like
to think he is right.  I think the damned feds ought to stick to
"regulating interstate commerce" in a more literal sense as was
provided for in the Constitution rather than trying to dictate local
affairs.