Text 21403, 88 rader
Skriven 2008-09-30 16:55:11 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 21389 av shannon talley (1:124/311)
Ärende: Hurricane Gustav
========================
30 Sep 08 13:35, shannon talley wrote to Roy Witt:

 >> On the contrary. California has such a law. The DEA says that it's
 >> worthless too, but they have to enforce federal law before the CA law
 >> becomes useless. The DEA looks the other way, unless their is a
 >> flagrant violation of federal law. i.e. for sale cannibus.

 st> Read Lee's post a little more closely and you'll see where it
 st> specifically states the physician must be registered to perscribe the
 st> material with the DEA.

Read the sub-notes on that law and it will tell you: marijuana must be
obtained in compliance with FDA and DEA administrative guidelines. So, as
a practical matter, as long as the federal government is not favorably
disposed to the therapeutic use of marijuana, nothing much will happen in
Louisiana for this area of patient care.

 st>   California's law doesn't make any mention of a Federal Agent (or
 st> physician registered) with the DEA.

The difference is a Republic v Traditional Roman law...

 st>   We were specifically communicating about LA's horrible
 st> contridiction of laws (not unlike some other states).

And the laws I quoted back to you were from Louisiana statutes.

 st> California, on the other hand, has a huge issue in regards to the
 st> constitutionality of the Federal Government trumping their state
 st> laws.

As do most states. Especially those who were once Confederate states.

 st> Specifically, according to the tenth amendment, "The powers not
 st> delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
 st> it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
 st> people." Simply put, any powers not mentioned previously in the
 st> constitution will be given to the States and the people to decide on.

Which does not trump the Constitution's delegated powers given to the
federal legislature to make laws that all states must follow. i.e. you pay
federal income tax because the federal legislative body imposes them on
the people. You also pay state income taxes, if you're unlucky enough to
live in a state that imposes income taxes (California).

 st> In California, however, medical marijuana has been legalized yet the
 st> DEA still conducts raids on the marijuana dispensaries and clinics in
 st> the state even though the Constitution does not grant them the power
 st> to do so.

See: Article 1 of the Constitution, where it does give that power to
federal legislation to create and pass laws to create and govern agencies
such as the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATFE, ETC..

 st> The positions of power have corrupted, on the macro scale, the
 st> individuals in the federal government that wish to impose their
 st> morals on the citizens of the country, and on the micro scale, the
 st> individuals in the DEA who are using force on the citizens to execute
 st> said morality.

That's beside the point.

 st> The Constitution is supposed to provide a check on the federal
 st> government, but it has failed miserably in this and an innumerable
 st> amount of other situations.

The Constitution is just fine. Your complaint should be addressed to those
who make the laws the Constitution provides the power for them to make
these laws.

 st> It is, after all, as forty-third president of the United States
 st>  of America George W. Bush so eloquently put it, "just a goddamned
 st> piece of paper."

He was right! What the print on that paper says is more important than
the paper it was written on.

 st> It truly has no power to prevent corruption.

It does...what you're making of it just doesn't appeal to your point of
view.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)