A Pro Palin thread

CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Really? You don't see the Congress changing huh? It's already begun and the votes are slipping away.... 2010 is the deadline on the Federal level..... the country is poised to go back to the right, and that's not trippin.

Unless I'm mistaken, the right is sort of against weed.... aren't they? So you tell me...if not now, with a solid majority of Dem's in there, and the clear signs that things are changing back.... when is it going to happen if not now? Pretty soon there will be a Republican President.... so that's another 4 years at least.

It's now or another long wait and we know that any one thing could poison the well. It's right now....
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Really? You don't see the Congress changing huh? It's already begun and the votes are slipping away.... 2010 is the deadline on the Federal level..... the country is poised to go back to the right, and that's not trippin.

Unless I'm mistaken, the right is sort of against weed.... aren't they? So you tell me...if not now, with a solid majority of Dem's in there, and the clear signs that things are changing back.... when is it going to happen if not now? Pretty soon there will be a Republican President.... so that's another 4 years at least.

It's now or another long wait and we know that any one thing could poison the well. It's right now....
Click to expand...






we'll be lucky to make it 2 more years before "the chaos" erupts. then it won't matter what you smoke. :hump::joint:
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I wish....... but if the most liberal Congress to come down the pike in 40 years doesn't get it done.... it comes down to wishing.

It could have passed this year... but that was campaign spin, nothing more it seems.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Really? You don't see the Congress changing huh? It's already begun and the votes are slipping away.... 2010 is the deadline on the Federal level..... the country is poised to go back to the right, and that's not trippin.

Unless I'm mistaken, the right is sort of against weed.... aren't they? So you tell me...if not now, with a solid majority of Dem's in there, and the clear signs that things are changing back.... when is it going to happen if not now? Pretty soon there will be a Republican President.... so that's another 4 years at least.

It's now or another long wait and we know that any one thing could poison the well. It's right now....
Click to expand...
You bring up a good point that the pendulum will swing back. However, weed being legal is alot of potential tax money that both sides drool over.
California may break through first, if they do others will follow. As we speak there is a bill under study in New Hampshire to
legalize and tax. I doubt it will fly, THIS year, but there is alot of behind the scenes activity that will keep pushing this year after year until it does. Trust me.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
I agree that both sides....let's face it... EVERY side of the political spectrum are money whores (since they don't produce money themselves, only spend), but also every side KNOWS who is their base.
The Repub's KNOW that their base is against it by a wide majority, and they will not dare go against them after watching the debacle which is now overtaking the Democratic party. No, they will tow their political line. They will choose survival over doing the right thing, as all politicians will do.

It's now.... or a very long wait.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
CrackerJax said:
I agree that both sides....let's face it... EVERY side of the political spectrum are money whores (since they don't produce money themselves, only spend), but also every side KNOWS who is their base.
The Repub's KNOW that their base is against it by a wide majority, and they will not dare go against them after watching the debacle which is now overtaking the Democratic party. No, they will tow their political line. They will choose survival over doing the right thing, as all politicians will do.

It's now.... or a very long wait.
Click to expand...

And that should tell you the nature of American government...

All smoke and mirrors.

If it's not legal in Cali this Nov. it's not happening till at least another blue liar is in the White House, and that's the game they play.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
The California weed initiative was secretly funded and sponsored by .... drum roll.... George W. Bush no less!

That's right.... Bush and Cheney hatched this plan years ago.

It was originally called A.N.D. - H.O.W. ... Attracting the Nations Druggies & Hippies Out West.

They figured they couldn't win the drug war, but maybe they could attract all the stoners into one place. It took about three seconds for Cheney to jump up on the table and yell California!!

And the rest is histoire.
 
ChChoda

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
The California weed initiative was secretly funded and sponsored by .... drum roll.... George W. Bush no less!

That's right.... Bush and Cheney hatched this plan years ago.

It was originally called A.N.D. - H.O.W. ... Attracting the Nations Druggies & Hippies Out West.

They figured they couldn't win the drug war, but maybe they could attract all the stoners into one place. It took about three seconds for Cheney to jump up on the table and yell California!!

And the rest is histoire.
Click to expand...
Wow! Your sources are good! For the record, it took Cheney about 15 seconds to jump on the table...bad knees, you know.

But wait, it gets deeper! Haliburton has been buying up the Nevada side of the CA NV border! Why, you ask? Because Bush (Jeb) plans to sink CA into the sea using the earth quake machine used to devastate Haiti! That was just a test run, and they were mostly dark skinned blacks... Anyway, then Exxon is going to start offshore drilling from their Nevada sea port! You see! Bush! Cheney! Haliburton! Exxon! You see! Vote Obama!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
For the record ... We recently got some good news from California. The California Supreme Court knocked down the county-to-county plant limits for valid med users. No longer can a county limit the plant numbers. Its still prudent to keep plant numbers under 100 though, just to keep the feds happy. :lol:
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
ViRedd said:
For the record ... We recently got some good news from California. The California Supreme Court knocked down the county-to-county plant limits for valid med users. No longer can a county limit the plant numbers. Its still prudent to keep plant numbers under 100 though, just to keep the feds happy. :lol:
Click to expand...
So the 6 plant rule no longer applies?

I think I heard something about this, you have to keep it within a 25 sq foot area... maybe that's incorrect. Got any more information?

I'll go check Norml..
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Choda.... I have it on firm authority that Cheney got up on that table in 3 seconds. Cheney always keeps a few huddled masses at his feet for those occasions....
 
Katatawnic

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
So the 6 plant rule no longer applies?

I think I heard something about this, you have to keep it within a 25 sq foot area... maybe that's incorrect. Got any more information?

I'll go check Norml..
Click to expand...
No limits now, Padawan. :mrgreen: I'm now in the process of getting my long-desired/needed mini-SOG rotation established. I make THC hand/body lotion which significantly decreases, and often eliminates, pain within moments, but it takes a lot more than 6 mature plants to produce enough to keep me supplied. Not to mention, spending less than an hour harvesting one to two small plants every other day (with 15-30 going at a time, of course) will be a LOT easier on my body than spending hours on end to trim one large plant twice a month, and I'll finally be able to yield enough to have a constant supply of my topical pain treatment. IT'S ABOUT TIME, EH?! :clap:

(SOURCE: California Supreme Court Further Clarifies Medical Marijuana Laws)

So, what does this all mean for California patients and caregivers?

If you’re enrolled in California’s medical marijuana ID card program and growing no more than 6 mature or 12 immature plants, and possessing 8 ounces or less of processed marijuana (or higher limits if your county allows), you will not be subject to arrest or prosecution. However, if you exceed these floor guidelines or choose not to obtain a state ID card, you may end up under arrest but you will have an affirmative defense in court, providing an opportunity to avoid prosecution if you can convince a judge or jury that you are a qualified patient and your marijuana was only an amount consistent with your personal medical needs.

These guidelines and the ID cards are important tools to help California’s patients and caregivers avoid unnecessary legal problems. Without them, the individual police officers would have discretion over whether someone claiming to be a patient was suspicious enough to be arrested or whether their marijuana was more than they needed. And we all know how great cops are at practicing medicine.
Click to expand...

CONFUSION IN CALIFORNIA

**********************************************************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #427 - Friday, 22 January 2010

Today newspapers across California are printing articles about a Supreme Court of California decision which may impact patients who are authorized to use medicinal cannabis. If there is a common thread in the printed articles it is one of confusion. Many of the articles contain varied opinions about what, if any, impact the decision will have.

You may read the decision at http://mapinc.org/url/SkEZh5HU

The Los Angeles Times coverage of the story is below. Here are links to some other newspaper articles about the topic:

Press Democrat www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n059.a07.html

San Francisco Chronicle www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n059.a08.html

Sacramento Bee www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n059.a09.html

Daily Nexus www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n060.a01.html

Pasadena Star-News www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n060.a02.html

Times-Standard www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n060.a04.html

Oakland Tribune www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n060.a05.html

Please consider sending your own opinion as a letter to the editor to your own local newspapers and, if you wish, to some of the newspapers listed in this alert.

**********************************************************************

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)

Page: A4

Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Times

Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/bc7El3Yo

Author: John Hoeffel

Referenced: The Supreme Court of California Opinion http://mapinc.org/url/SkEZh5HU
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

STATE LIMITS ON MEDICAL POT REJECTED

California Supreme Court Invalidates a 2003 Provision That Capped Possession at Eight Ounces.

The Justices Unanimously Declare Unconstitutional a 2003 Provision That Capped Possession at Eight Ounces and Cultivation at Six Mature or 12 Immature Plants.

In a unanimous decision filed Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's specific limits on how much medical marijuana a patient can possess, concluding that restrictions imposed by the Legislature were an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative.

The decision, which affirmed an appellate decision, means people who have a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana can possess and cultivate as much as is "reasonably necessary."

The court invalidated a provision of a 2003 state law passed to clarify the initiative. Under that law, patients or their primary caregivers could have no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and grow no more than six mature or 12 immature plants. The law, however, allowed patients to have more than that if they had a statement from a doctor that the amount was insufficient.

"I'm very pleased. They gave us exactly what we wanted," said Gerald F. Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University who argued the case for Patrick K. Kelly, a medical marijuana patient from Lakewood.

Medical marijuana advocates and defense attorneys said the court's decision could make it harder for prosecutors to win convictions because they will no longer be able to tell juries that a defendant had more medical marijuana than the law allows.

"The big impact is going to be the change in perception by the district attorney," said Allison B. Margolin, a Los Angeles attorney. "It's going to be difficult for a narcotics expert to testify that an amount is unreasonable."

The state's 1996 medical marijuana initiative, known as the Compassionate Use Act, put no limit on the amount of cannabis a patient could possess or cultivate other than to require that it be "personal medical purposes."

Seven years later, the Legislature passed a law to create medical marijuana identification cards to help protect patients from arrest and included the limits on possession and cultivation.

The justices concluded that the state Constitution bars the Legislature from changing an initiative approved by voters, but also appeared to rue that restraint. Almost a third of the 54-page decision written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George discusses how California's initiative process places unparalleled limits on the Legislature. The decision notes that it "may well be prudent and advisable" for lawmakers to have the power to set limits.

George recently gave a speech to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in which he questioned whether initiatives had become "an impediment to the effective functioning of a true democratic process."

In an odd twist, Uelmen and state prosecutors argued before the court that the limits were unconstitutional.

Both sides also argued that the appellate court erred when it ruled the entire section of the law that included the limits was unconstitutional. They maintained that the limits were valid as part of the state's medical marijuana identification card program.

"It effectively would have gutted the ID card program," said Deputy Atty. Gen. Michael Johnsen.

The court agreed, concluding that the limits could still be applied to the identification card program.

Medical marijuana advocates and the state attorney general's office said that means patients with ID cards are shielded from arrest for possession or cultivation if they have less than the limits in state law or the more liberal limits adopted by some cities and counties. But Chris Conrad, a court-qualified expert medical marijuana witness, said he believed the limits would also protect patients without cards.

"In one sense this is a call to patients to enroll in the ID card program if they want to be immune from arrest and prosecution," said Kris Hermes with Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy organization.

The card program, however, has been largely shunned by patients who have been afraid to have their names listed in government records. Statewide, about 38,000 cards, which must be renewed annually, have been issued since the program started. In Los Angeles County, the total is 1,574.

**********************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

Please post copies of your letters to the sent letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see

http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

Suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides

**********************************************************************

Prepared by: Richard Lake, Senior Editor www.mapinc.org
Click to expand...
 
ChChoda

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Choda.... I have it on firm authority that Cheney got up on that table in 3 seconds. Cheney always keeps a few huddled masses at his feet for those occasions....
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for it...I got my info from that lyin sack of hog shit Scooter Libby.

On a lighter note, Cheney sent me a Christmas card last year. It was very thoughtful of him...



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top