Medical marijuana question

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Yay for state's rights! Seriously, the whole anti-marijuana crusade is ridiculous when there are so many more serious problems in the country. If it were legalized, it would actually take away a shitload of money from gangs/organized crime.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..and if you use it your a DOPER.

Showing off those great critical thinking skills as always. At least you're consistent with the capitalization.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Sounds like the company was the dopey one there... couldn't go judging someone on the quality of their work rather than their urine, apparently.

No, the company is simply being smart. Can you imagine what would happen if that employee later on caused some problem or accident? The company would be sued into oblivion for not taking action earlier. Why would the company risk anything to keep someone who has no regard for company rules?

..people on this form are miserably ignorant of safety sensitive preemployment/post accident/random drug testing. most of em wouldn't last a month on the job if they some how got hired.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Wtf does this mean? Important parts in the first paragraph

State Medical Cannabis Laws are Final!
Return of Legal Cannabis Not Pre-empted by Federal Law

Dear ASA Supporter,

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court?s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!

Yesterday?s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine. ASA needs your help to keep doing important work like this. Please take a moment to make a special contribution to ASA today.

The Court?s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them.

Medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use. This decision further clears the way for state implementation and adds new urgency to ASA?s work in the nation?s capitol, where we have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

ASA is working in the courts and in the halls of Congress to protect and expand patients? rights ? and we are making a difference. We have won important victories in court, made significant inroads in Congress, and helped reframe the national debate about medical cannabis. But we need your help to carry on. Please make a contribution to support ASA today.

Thank you,

What that case (Garden Grove Vs Superior Court) actually decided was more far reaching than just Fed v State Law.
http://www.dailycasereport.com...ex.php?q=open_pdf/2640
If you look closely at the cities represented in the amicus curiae for the petioner, you'll find the cities opposed to the State law, and whose DA's actively ignore the will of the people of the State of California, in violation of their oath of office.
But I digress....
This case was about the SUPERIOR COURT ordering the City of Garden Grove to return some Medical Marijuana it seized and refused to return, despite being ordered by the Appelate court as well.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Ns1
Wtf does this mean? Important parts in the first paragraph

State Medical Cannabis Laws are Final!
Return of Legal Cannabis Not Pre-empted by Federal Law

Dear ASA Supporter,

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court?s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!

Yesterday?s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine. ASA needs your help to keep doing important work like this. Please take a moment to make a special contribution to ASA today.

The Court?s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them.

Medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use. This decision further clears the way for state implementation and adds new urgency to ASA?s work in the nation?s capitol, where we have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

ASA is working in the courts and in the halls of Congress to protect and expand patients? rights ? and we are making a difference. We have won important victories in court, made significant inroads in Congress, and helped reframe the national debate about medical cannabis. But we need your help to carry on. Please make a contribution to support ASA today.

Thank you,

What that case (Garden Grove Vs Superior Court) actually decided was more far reaching than just Fed v State Law.
http://www.dailycasereport.com...ex.php?q=open_pdf/2640
If you look closely at the cities represented in the amicus curiae for the petioner, you'll find the cities opposed to the State law, and whose DA's actively ignore the will of the people of the State of California, in violation of their oath of office.
But I digress....
This case was about the SUPERIOR COURT ordering the City of Garden Grove to return some Medical Marijuana it seized and refused to return, despite being ordered by the Appelate court as well.

that case you are referring to is/was Kha vs Garden Grove IIRC. Thanks for the link!

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Sounds like the company was the dopey one there... couldn't go judging someone on the quality of their work rather than their urine, apparently.

No, the company is simply being smart. Can you imagine what would happen if that employee later on caused some problem or accident? The company would be sued into oblivion for not taking action earlier. Why would the company risk anything to keep someone who has no regard for company rules?

..people on this form are miserably ignorant of safety sensitive preemployment/post accident/random drug testing. most of em wouldn't last a month on the job if they some how got hired.

:laugh:
Speaking of "miserably ignorant", thank you for the sparkling example.
Who let you right wing flunkies out of P&N, anyway?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Sounds like the company was the dopey one there... couldn't go judging someone on the quality of their work rather than their urine, apparently.

No, the company is simply being smart. Can you imagine what would happen if that employee later on caused some problem or accident? The company would be sued into oblivion for not taking action earlier. Why would the company risk anything to keep someone who has no regard for company rules?

..people on this form are miserably ignorant of safety sensitive preemployment/post accident/random drug testing. most of em wouldn't last a month on the job if they some how got hired.

Care to get off your horse, sir?

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..and if you use it you're a DOPER.

Actually fixed it, although it really doesn't do anything for you.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Sounds like the company was the dopey one there... couldn't go judging someone on the quality of their work rather than their urine, apparently.

No, the company is simply being smart. Can you imagine what would happen if that employee later on caused some problem or accident? The company would be sued into oblivion for not taking action earlier. Why would the company risk anything to keep someone who has no regard for company rules?

..people on this form are miserably ignorant of safety sensitive preemployment/post accident/random drug testing. most of em wouldn't last a month on the job if they some how got hired.

:laugh:
Speaking of "miserably ignorant", thank you for the sparkling example.
Who let you right wing flunkies out of P&N, anyway?

..failed again. I'm a registered democrat.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Ns1
Wtf does this mean? Important parts in the first paragraph

State Medical Cannabis Laws are Final!
Return of Legal Cannabis Not Pre-empted by Federal Law

Dear ASA Supporter,

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court?s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!

Yesterday?s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine. ASA needs your help to keep doing important work like this. Please take a moment to make a special contribution to ASA today.

The Court?s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them.

Medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use. This decision further clears the way for state implementation and adds new urgency to ASA?s work in the nation?s capitol, where we have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

ASA is working in the courts and in the halls of Congress to protect and expand patients? rights ? and we are making a difference. We have won important victories in court, made significant inroads in Congress, and helped reframe the national debate about medical cannabis. But we need your help to carry on. Please make a contribution to support ASA today.

Thank you,

What that case (Garden Grove Vs Superior Court) actually decided was more far reaching than just Fed v State Law.
http://www.dailycasereport.com...ex.php?q=open_pdf/2640
If you look closely at the cities represented in the amicus curiae for the petioner, you'll find the cities opposed to the State law, and whose DA's actively ignore the will of the people of the State of California, in violation of their oath of office.
But I digress....
This case was about the SUPERIOR COURT ordering the City of Garden Grove to return some Medical Marijuana it seized and refused to return, despite being ordered by the Appelate court as well.

that case you are referring to is/was Kha vs Garden Grove IIRC. Thanks for the link!

Well GG v SC stems from the original case you mentioned.
And I think it bears pointing out again all the other municipalities who joined in , hoping to use activist judges for their own agenda.
Baldheads fighting Babylon as Bob Marley would say.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: IGBT

..failed again. I'm a registered democrat.

Operation CHAOS is over, you can change back.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Wtf does this mean? Important parts in the first paragraph

State Medical Cannabis Laws are Final!
Return of Legal Cannabis Not Pre-empted by Federal Law

Dear ASA Supporter,

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court?s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!
-snip-

I disagree with the author's interpretation of the SCOTUS's refusal to hear the case.

Firstly, anyone who attempts to draw such conclusions from the courts mere refusal is engaging in some mighty risky analysis/speculation.

Secondly, the SCOTUS has already ruled that federal law trumps state law with regards narcotics (marijuana laws); their basis for that ruling was the "Interstate Comerce Clause" in the Constitution.

(And dang you moderator! I lost my first reply because you moved this thread while I was in the midst of responding )

Fern

 

[Ns1]

Secondly, the SCOTUS has already ruled that federal law trumps state law with regards narcotics (marijuana laws); their basis for that ruling was the "Interstate Comerce Clause" in the Constitution.

such bullshit x infinity

 

[cheezy321]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: IGBT

..failed again. I'm a registered democrat.

Operation CHAOS is over, you can change back.

Once old coots like him start dying off we will begin to make real progress with marijuana laws.

Until then, quit smoking that DOPE you DRUG ADDICTS WHO RUIN SOCIETY

 

[piasabird]

Maybe the Federal Government has to allow medical marijuana use. However, it is still illegal to use drugs and drive under the influence. Also if the feds wanted to they could start some test cases and charge doctors and clinics for Malpractice if it is unwarranted, and then fine the club for hundred of thousands of dollar for abuse of the law.

So it would be much better if we just legalized Marijuana and start immediately taxing it to death and insuring the supply is untainted. I think we are missing the ability to license the growers and distrubutors and collecting tax.

Cigarettes cost about $0.50 per pack to make. However, we are taxing people to death. Where is the tax on Marijuana?

Note: Some taxes already exist if you are caught with Marijuana in some states even though it is illegal. Even though it may only be a misdemeanor, they turn around and tax it at $300.00 an ounce.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/ct/mjtax.html

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..failed again. I'm a registered democrat.

Huh, your posts in P&N definitely make you sound like a right winger. Maybe you're just in denial.