Printable View
RIP Steve McWilliams......
Friends and supporters of McWilliams, who killed himself last week in a desperate effort to end his suffering and draw attention to his cause, will gather at City Hall at noon to remember the activist who pushed San Diego into becoming the largest city in the nation to adopt a medical marijuana law.
http://www.unknownnews.org/0507190717McWilliams.html
I really feel for this guy. I do. There's no question he got shafted big-time by an overzealous prosecuter.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court made the correct decision when they announced their verdict. The question was not whether medical marijuana should be legal - which I clearly think it should. The issue was the legality of medical marijuana users being prosecuted under federal law even when states' laws permit such use. Being that federal law will always trump state law, the Court had no choice but to render the decision they made. Any other decision would've been the judiciary making a legislative action.
Personally, I think headlines such as "Supreme Court murders California man" do more harm than good to the legalization movement. It puts a bad face on things and casts an inappropriate shadow on the good we are trying to accomplish.
well with all due respect, the Supreme Court upheld the law, true. but what did they do to try and change it? See, it's the same principle as saying you're not responsible for something just because you were ordered to do it. Kinda like nazi generals being shocked because of their war convictions since hitler ordered them to do the holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhallg2k
It's all a matter of beuracreacy. The democrats blame the republicans but ignore their own faults. and vice versa.
medical marijuana has been proven time and time again to be beneficial. it's being supressed to make profit. and i think headlines like that are just what we NEED. we need more attention grabbing headlines like that on serious investigative journalist channels. Noone who erroneously disapproves of cannabis is going to be interested in a headline that reads "Medical Marijuana advocate passes away"
In due time, i hope the members of the supreme court who voted against state jurisdiction feel shame for what theyve done.
I'm going to smoke a blunt tonight and dedicate it to this guy. I hope he's in a better place where the bud is so potent it's purple.
let's roll.
its not the supreme courts place to make such a decision. I hope whoever blames the supreme court gets a mental exam. Its not their place, their right, or in their power to do such things nich. But of course, everything in America is comparable to Nazi Germany... I really admire your ability to relate everything back to Nazis. Really.
Jesus Christ dude why do you always respond to my posts with an attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by yocass
I never said the supreme court shouldve ruled in favour. to an extent i would agree with their decision because it is the law. what im trying to say is that they shouldve at least made note of that fact. since they didnt, it comes off as though they couldnt care less.
Which, of course, suits you just fine because you dont have any debilitating diseases now do you? You're just another punk smoking because you think it makes you look cool, or you think you're fighting some kind of establishment. you obviously dont know whether to be a fucking hippy or an anarchist.
Such a shame that you dont see any correlation between what happened in nazi germany and whats happening now in america. Either you're blind or you dont know history. either way you're still a pathetic loser.
all hail dumbasses
I actually have a medical marijuana card, with a noted disease. Im not a hippy, and I dont believe in the stupidity called anarchism. where are you from? Im starting to doubt you being an american... you just know so little about law/politics of this country. THe supreme court votes yes or no. Its the law or it isnt. No ifs, ands, buts, or note making about it. I attacked anyone who believes the supreme court is at fault for someone killing themselves. If you do, then your an idiot. Or at least blinded by emotional stupidity. Anyways like I said, educate yourself about 2 things: nazi germany, and then american politics.
im not american. im canadian. im bombarded enough by your news media and i studied american history for years in high school. i never said the supreme court does anything beyond saying yes or no. that's their job. But they do have a voice. i wouldve respected and agreed with any supreme court justice that went on record stating he had to uphold the law but urged that if people were so passionate to fight for it. With a respected official going on record like that, we could advance legal cannabis usage light years ahead.\Quote:
Originally Posted by yocass
You're just looking to pick fights.
And also, why would you say america has no relation with nazi germany?
Nazi germany had gun control. America has gun control. the difference is americans have the fourth amendment.
nazi germany linked christianity with politics. hitler was a christian believe it or not. you probably wont without checking but im used to it
nazi germany spied on its citizens constantly. hmmm...i wonder what the patriot act allows the fbi to do when we dont know about it...
nazi germany originally used the reichstag fire to rally citizens to invade poland. america used 9/11 to rally people into war with iraq and afghanistan.
i could go on and it gets more complex. i do know american politics...in fact i know more than canadian politics and i do know history. what else have you got?
just remember, if you reply just reply with decency and common sense. otherwise you're useless to anyone who wants a good read.
let's roll.
haha.. that explains a lot. Canadas like nazi germany too! Canada has gun control, right? Like most countries. Whats religion have to do with it? Are all christians nazis now? We actually have lots of jewish people in america.. ~gasp~ Certain spying abilities are necessities for every country that plans to live 5 minutes. Ive never been spyed on it, nor has anyone I know. Canada has the canadian flag, along with Canada day too. From most of your posts you dont understand american politics whatsoever, maybe a little bit of american law, but not politics.
Considering the source, I find this statement absolutely hilarious. Many times when someone strongly disagrees with you or disparages your so-called "sources" you launch a personal attack, rather than following your own advice. Take the other thread as a case in point: yocass picked apart your argument point by point and called into question the accuracy and credibility of your sources, and how did you respond? By attacking his avatar and suggestion he was unhappy because that must be his picture. Was that your idea of decency and common sense? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholasstanko
how would you know if someone was spying on you? isnt that the point to not know?Quote:
Originally Posted by yocass
i wasnt bad-mouthing america justifying canada. i was pointing out the similarities of your country with nazi germany before they went radical. we werent talking about foreign policy.
Yes beeblebrox. youre absolutely right. how dumb of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeblebrox.420
Dont post a thread to support what you're saying since i already called on you to show me what you're talking about.
Yocass didnt pick apart anything. if you want to call abstract speculation "picking apart" at credible sources, then...well you know how i feel about you ;)
yeh, how do i respond to unfounded and ridiculous criticism? by comtinuing to debate with the same credible sources and keep putting on a laugh show for an ignorant asshole? thats a much better idea.. a real mod think tanker.
I'm waiting for any criticsim on yocass' part....but i might get a muscle cramp.
Keep up the "great" work!
let's roll.
i don't see anywhere in the constitution where it gives the feds' the explicit authority to make plants illegal...
therefore, couldn't the supreme court have said THAT? and that it's a states' rights issue, and the states should decide if someone should be prosecuted.
there could be a federal law overturning the 1st amendment that's passed, would the supreme court have to uphold it?
the court doesn't have to be a rubber stamp, that's actually kind of a bad thing.
i really think it's about money though. we dont need lumber and pharmaceutical industries at all. that's what scares the shit out of the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
plus they make billions from drug sales anyway.
The purpose of the Constitution is not so much to grant authority, but rather to limit it. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can't regulate things like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by pisshead
right, it limits the feds' authority, and grants everything else to the states. what congress can do is explicity outlined, if it doesn't have the authority to do it, it can't.
given your statement, the congress can do anything because the constitution doesn't say it can't...
article 1, section 8.
touche'
Experts disagree with your assessment:
From here. Arguably, making marijuana illegal is an effort by Congress to ensure domestic tranquility. Whether this is actually being accomplished, however, is a matter of some debate. I agree that making it illegal is of dubious effectiveness, but I disagree with your statement that they have no right to do so.Quote:
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''
Also, Article I, section 8 says, in part:
This is sort of the catchall that allows the US Congress to make such laws as it deems necessary to use the powers the Constitution explicity grants it. Congress has the authority to make whatever laws it sees fit. It is the job of the Supreme court to determine if these laws explicity violate the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Thus far, the Court has not found reason to rule the laws pertaining to marijuana to be unconstitutional.Quote:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Again, to be clear, I am NOT agreeing with the laws, only with the fact that the US Congress does, in fact, have the Constitutional authority to make such laws, if it so deems fit.
toucheQuote:
Originally Posted by Beeblebrox.420
A Bit off track, but it shows that the government is really out of touch, if they cannot agree to give equal rights to all how can they possibly legalize marijuana....
The ERA's first section states "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." It was intended to place into law the equality of men and women. It was sent to the states in March, 1972. The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years. It expired unratified in 1982.
The text:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
so are you proposing, say, an armed revolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by highinspain
but seriously, the supreme court ruled that black people werent human at a time. so that shows how great they are at ruling between the lines. if the whole idea is to follow every law by the letter, then what about the laws written by the corrupt?
Well, the Congress does not ratify amendments to the Constitution, the States do. If you wish to blame someone for the failure of the ERA, then place the blame properly, with the States - more specifically, with the voters. It's my feeling that the Amendment failed because because it was deemed unnecessary. The Constitution already explicitly grants the same rights to all Men ("...All men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights..."); with the term "men" here taking on the same meaning as "person", irrespective of gender.
[QUOTE=nicholasstanko]so are you proposing, say, an armed revolution?
I thought it was happing now Just ask torog :) :)
Granted, it is the states but, apparently enough women felt they also wanted to be included not just men....seems a bit silly but whats in a word? is is "is"
[QUOTE=highinspain]lol. but i trust torog. dont you trust retired army troops with extreme right-wing christian agendas toting semi-automatic wepons too? bush thinks its a good idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholasstanko
lol. just havin a poke at ya torog ;)
i don't know...bush is pretty liberal as i see it. he's basically bill clinton on steroids. he's got to keep this illusion up he's conservative on these hallmark issues so his base doesn't wake up to the fact that he's really an aristocratic anti-american puppet meant to sell out our sovereignty to global interests.
but i think lord bush hates guns and loves dead babies as much as the next globalist politico.
Yes i do I like the guy even if he scares me ;)
Agreed. I would not be adverse to changing the wording to "All people/persons..." or something of that nature. But once you start altering the body text of the Constitution, you open up a whole new can of worms. It would be a disturbing precendent; one which I, for one, would be very concerned about should it occur. I think the present wording is sufficient, and apparently the majority of the voters concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by highinspain
I agree ,i did not mean to go off track.
Justice Stevens actually made note of the fact that currect medical marijuana laws trouble him. He said something to the effect of, I hope this debate can find its way to the halls of Congress (not an exact quote; I can't seem to find it). But since that was not the issue before the court, he had no choice but to make a finding "against" users of medical marijuana.Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholasstanko
It really was the right thing to do. Whether you agree with it or not, marijuana has been a so-called controlled substance since the '40s and the Court rightly found that the federal government has jurisdiction over such things.
If the laws were changed, obviously, the Supreme Court would've responded differently. That needs to be the focus.