🚀 go-pugleaf

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>...
> > > > >> 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.

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.
 
> > 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.

> but I don't think
> all of the issues in this case have been tested by the Supremes.  

The SC upheld the federal prohibition of marijuana use in medical
treatments.

> 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.

I never ventured an opinion regarding the medical status of marijuana.
 I actually did research with marijuana a long long time ago for its
medicinal value, though what we were doing is describing a synthetic
pathway.  The feds used to grow it for us.