digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Raiding California: Medical Marijuana Provider Faces 100 Yrs

reason.tv — Should medical marijuana be kept from minors at all costs? Why is it that pharmacists can dispense amphetamines without getting busted, but legal operators who dispense medical marijuana face prison time? Why do armed federal agents persist in raiding California? Charlie Lynch is facing 100 years in federal prison -- but he followed state law.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kemp34, on 07/24/2008, -8/+76The tyranny continues and grows daily.
    • poprocksandsoda, on 07/24/2008, -13/+2LOL. You're too serious man.
    • cawpin, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2"-- but he followed state law"

      It doesn't matter if you follow state law if you're still breaking federal law. If you don't like it, leave.
      • ZxEfR, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Actually a prohibition is against federal law as set forth by the founding fathers of this country. So....If you don't like it....you're the one that needs to leave!
      • Midtowner, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1ZxEfR, what in the hell are you talking about? How is "a prohibition" against federal law set forth by the founding fathers of this country? What law are you talking about?

        The trouble with most of you wack jobs is that you're against the government, but you don't even know what rules the government is constrained by.

        Marijuana prohibitions are a-ok under federal law. In fact, prohibitions incident to any channels or instrumentalities of trade are just fine, as are all laws regulating or effecting those channels and instrumentalities of trade. Since marijuana is a good and it's being sold, it's in interstate commerce. While the marijunana itself might be home grown, it's doubtless kept in bags and storage containers shipped in from somewhere out of state, perhaps fertilized with fertilzer made out of state, etc. That makes it 100% subject to the commerce clause of Article I of the Constitution.

        But wait! There's more!

        California's law is perfectly fine -- it was passed pursuant to California's reserved powers (a/k/a police powers) under the 10th Amendment. Is that enough? Absolutely not.

        There happens to be an otherwise constitutional federal law which contradicts the state law (see above as to constitutionality). The California law says that Californians may buy and sell marijuna for medical purposes while the federal law says marijuna may not be sold or possessed or grown.

        I will now refer you to the "Supremacy Clause," arising under Article IV, cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause says that federal law will be "the supreme law of the land." That means that otherwise constitutional state laws which are contra to constitutional federal laws are completely preempted. That means that California's law is nul and void.

        It also means that you're 100% wrong about such a prohibition being "against federal law."

        California's executive doesn't have to enforce the federal laws, but they cannot stop the feds from coming in and enforcing those same laws.
      • Kershalt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Ok so if the federal goverment made a law against sugar would you support them in arresting your grandma for makeing Tea? just because its a law doesnt mean its right. also i would like to point out that no law should impede someones pursuit of happiness and weed makes this kid and his family happy so they shouldnt impede on his right to pursue means of happiness. Yes this is crappy logic but you get the point, i can understand being an ahole over a guy getting busted for dealing on the corner but to act all high and mighty because someone needed there meds and was getting it?... wow your a douche
      • Midtowner, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1Kershalt:

        Yes, the federal government could make it against the law to have sugar. Will it? I doubt the American people would tolerate a Senate which could support such a thing. Would such a law be "right"? Depends on your individual morals. Would such a law be Constitutional? Certainly.

        You might also consider reading what I actually posted (clearly you didn't). You missed the fact that I never commented on the appropriateness of rightness of this action, merely that the above statement that the feds were doing something illegal was out and out false.

        "No law should impede his right to pursue happiness."

        That's a damned scary proposition. Before we attack it though, where does that appear? The Declaration of Independence -- not an authoritative legal document. Further, your proposal would mean that if what makes me happy is driving down the highway at night in my Lamborghini, screwing a [consenting] duck, whilst snorting lines of cocaine, that to do so is my right and the government can't do a thing about it.

        Absurd.

        "Yes this is crappy logic."

        -- I'm glad we agree.

        "but to act all high and mighty because someone needed there [sic] meds and was [sic] getting it [sic]?...wow [sic] your [sic] a douche [sic]"

        No, I was being "high and mighty" because in order to explain to most people on Digg as to exactly why they're wrong, I sometimes like to make a full argument, laying out all of the facts in order to completely demonstrate that individual's ineptitude. I don't really care about the kid and his weed. He did break the law, however, and that law was 100% Constitutional. The real "douches" here are the folks who convinced this kid that hoarding large amounts of illicit substances, even for personal use was a smart thing to do.
      • ZxEfR, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Midtowner --- You'd make a great Judge for the scum that are ruining my country. The one thing you can't seem to get through your head is the SPIRIT of the law. If the founding fathers thought it okay to prohibit something they would NOT have shed their blood to fight for our freedoms in the first place! Why is that so hard for you to understand. Have you not ever heard the founders statements saying how evil prohibitions are? I certainly have.....I've learned from their bloodshed I'm just sorry you and the vast majority of the sheople here are incapable of doing so. In a democracy you can technically vote in any evil you want to....so by all means continue on your quest to do just that!
  • oiyshi, on 07/24/2008, -9/+106The real criminals are the federal government.
    • stopbrorape, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7They have heroin and cocaine listed as schedule 2 drugs meaning in rare instances they can use it as medicinal while marijuana is schedule 1.
    • thereisnostate, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2And the millions of Americans who vote for the members of the federal government who institute such policies. The slaves keep the other slaves down.
    • BobOki, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Kids smokes weed to ease his pain.
      Screw that, ANYONE smokes weed...... and this is bad.

      In other news, we are bailing out real crooks and liars of each who have gone to court multiple times over drug related busts (hard ones, cocaine, etcetc not weed) got off without issue and are now having their bills paid for by us.
      Damn near time to dump the worthless govt.
  • greanbean, on 07/24/2008, -7/+41well duh. the government must do whatever it can to prevent this kid from trying to cope with his disease. after all, what else is government for????? i know ill sleep well tonight knowing that those bank robbing, rapist, aids and cancer dope fiends are off the streets!
    *moves to canada*
  • Swivelstick, on 07/24/2008, -5/+47the hypocrisy never ends, hopefully one day the big pharmaceuticals will lose some of the power they currently hold and we can have a "health system" instead of the current state of just treating illness with more often then not ineffective drugs.
    • FLarsen, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Hypocrisy is the keyword. Putting this guy in prison for up to 100 years and giving his clients amphetamines and opiates instead.

      So ***** stupid!
  • Jasper710, on 07/24/2008, -7/+35F the Feds
    • letherial, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1terrorist!!!!
    • docbob84, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2It's the internet, you're allowed to swear. The word is "*****". Say it with me, "*****". Sometimes it's even fun to scream it out loud: "*****!" I say it all day long. ***** ***** *****, ***** ***** *****. :)
  • angeladtao, on 07/24/2008, -5/+39If marijuana could only be produced by some chemical process that a pharmaceutical company could patent, you bet it would be
    approved for medical usage! And we'd be seeing commercials touting it for those little digestive disorders you see on TV during the
    evening news when most people are having dinner! And then there they would be again with the evening news and Jay Leno for those
    chronic pains that just won't let you sleep. Hypocrites.
    • juniorb, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6*Slow clap.*

      Preach on, sister!
    • mightyslick, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7They tried it . Its called marinal ,not sure of spelling. I had a friend dieing of AIDS who was prescribed this.It has know where near the same effect on the body. Myself and others found ways to help him at risk of prosecution ourselves. R.I.P. Mike
    • Taiyoryu, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Given the leeway biomedical companies have in terms of patenting DNA, it wouldn't be all that surprising for this to occur since the body naturally produces cannabinoids. At which point, patented cannabinoids would be legal whereas the same stuff you can grow cheaply and is just as, if not more, effective will be illegal. How screwed up would that be?
    • Nevarius, on 07/24/2008, -0/+13They cant patent marijuana, but they have made synthetic THC (marinol) which doesn't work as well as the real thing (and they instead patent that).

      Marinol is a schedule 3 (soon to be 4) drug, while marijuana is a schedule 1 drug since they claim it has no medical value. Funny how weed is claimed to have no medical value, but yet marinol is based on it.

      To me it sounds as if certain industries (cotton,pharma,lumber,alcohol,prison/law enforcement,etc) have too much interest in keeping it illegal and lobby heavily to keep it so.
      • Kershalt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1marinol is synthetic THC and in every proper study (as in double blind) it has been shown it doesnt work as well as inhaleing it. The effect of inhaleing Vaporized THC causes your brain to coat a certain area with calcium almost immediatly where as this effect when ingested is shown to happen much slower and not as fully in less the dose is about 3-4 times larger. So the reason this isnt marketed big in america is its not as usefull and more expensive to make then the original so who would buy it? its like going to the car dealership and picking out a 70s bug for the same price as the 08 bug at the front of the lot.
    • adikt, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3marinol
  • VKMO, on 07/24/2008, -4/+30It's nothing short of barbaric to harass, intimidate, persecute and prosecute medical marijuana patients, especially in states where it is legal!

    And the possibility of 100 years in prison for operating a medical marijuana dispensary where state law allows it is just surreal.
    • buddyfarr, on 07/24/2008, -11/+0I have nothing against them using it but isn't the reason that this person is being arrested is because it is against the federal law? Maybe the state should then be sued by him since they passed a law that goes directly against a fed law. Everyone knows that fed law trumps state law every time.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/24/2008, -3/+22Interesting how the police state run by global corporate interest can make up any federal law.
  • Surferess, on 07/24/2008, -7/+12It is crazy how California law enforcement wont enforce the voter's will. They instead continue to do whatever they please.
    • electricwaffles, on 07/24/2008, -2/+15It was the will of "federal agents" (likely the DEA). Cali is one of the loosest states in terms of marijuana restrictions and women.
      • jawagas, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8waffles isn't joking, it's true.
      • alperea, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5the sheriff invited the DEA to raid his dispensary.
  • thatfunman, on 07/24/2008, -3/+12Things are going to be bumpy for awhile, but it won't be long until cannabis is legalized for everyone. Things are looking up for the industry.
    • uallsuck, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8I hope you're right, but people have been saying "any day now" for forty years. So, any day now . . .
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Big Pharma has too much invested in their "alternatives" to marijuana to go down without a fight. It's why they've "invested" so heavily in the comfort of all of our elected officials. It's just sick.
  • notzak, on 07/24/2008, -31/+5Can we please add a marijuana section to digg already so I can block these retarded stories?
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/24/2008, -3/+23Can we please add a "Retard" button so I can block these retards?
      Oh, there it is.
    • tehsilentcircus, on 07/24/2008, -1/+15It boggles my mind why people intentionally click on articles they have no interest in and then take it a step further by making a retarded comment that will inevitably be dugg down.

    • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6 Why don't you try to educate yourself, and quit the goose-stepping?
    • skeletorcares, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4i wouldn't mind a pot section.... thought. For the exact opposite reason.
    • enantiodromia, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2is the rest of the Net difficult for you to use, or just Digg?
  • buddyw, on 07/24/2008, -9/+3Man, reason.tv has a lot of good videos.
  • Obzerva, on 07/24/2008, -5/+29***** THE DEA!!!
  • megadan76, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12Damn that is sick. No rational person could justify these actions; they're the end result of a faceless, corporate, fearful regime with no accountability.
  • galvo, on 07/24/2008, -3/+30100 years in prison for not hurting a fly.
    • toxicshok, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4What are you talking about? Clearly this is a just punishment. This evil evil pharmisist forced his will on this poor young innocent boy. He introduced him to the evils of marijuana and I'm sure owen could barely contain all the sexual promiscuity the drug caused him to feel.

      Those murders on the other hand, there being persecuted by the federal government for merely trying to help someone commit assisted suicide, whether they like it or not.
    • atgmac, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4How do you know? He may well have hurt many flies.
      • thatfunman, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Only if he was selling weed to flies, but then the flies would probably enjoy getting stoned.
  • sayssimon, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11so..he gets life for selling grass. that sucks *****
  • lostsymphonies1, on 07/24/2008, -3/+21I can't believe I live in a country that would do this to its own citizens. It's just sad.
    • LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1It's not our country anymore. :(
  • Pittance, on 07/24/2008, -3/+11Revolting. I never thought I would be so for marijuana legalization, but crap like this just makes no sense.
  • cygnox, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6California is still very progressive when it comes to cannabis enforcement on the individual user. Depending on where you are, such as San Francisco, or West Hollywood, police don't really give a ***** if they catch you with a small amount of pot (even if you don't have a medical cannabis card). If you are in a place where the police do care, you probably will just get off with a small fine. The Feds enforcing federal cannabis laws is obviously a different story and I don't think there is much the state can do to fend them off besides maybe succeed from the union?
    • NickMacnab, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4I live in Oregon and here if you have under an ounce the cops just take it and give you a fine making it practically legal.
    • Tevediggs, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Here in Denver you can have up to an ounce as long as it's in one bag and it's legal. However this faces the same issue since it's county
    • aikimoe, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Actually, it takes a bit of cooperation on the part of local authorities in order for the Feds to do their dirty work. In this case, it was the local Sheriff, I believe.
    • getbusyliving, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Here in Canada you can smoke weed while porking the Prime Ministers daughter as long as you fry the cop up a slice of baloney and promise to pop by his place and watch "Strange Brew" when you're finished.
  • benjie, on 07/24/2008, -10/+6Federal law overrules any contradictory state law. Marijuana is still illegal in the United States. It doesn't matter what laws California passes, it's still illegal, even there.

    You may not agree with that law, but you can't say that this was a legal operation.
    • thefarouk, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12The 8th ammendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " - it seems common enough opinion that 100 years is asenine in this case.
      The 10th ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
      Its been a few years since US history and Civics, but seems to me I recall nothing in the constitution about the creation of a DEA, or enforcing "blue" laws upon its citizens.
      If you are going to claim the rights of being a citizen, the least you can do is know them before you put your foot in your mouth.
      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2"I recall nothing in the constitution about the creation of a DEA,"

        I recall nothing in the constitution about regulating nuclear weapons either, so that's a non-starter. The constitution doesn't have to explicitly authorize every single independent or executive agency. The president/congress can create any agency they like so long as it's charged with carrying out any of their enumerated powers.

        In this case the President/Congress rely on 1) the commerce clause, 2) the necessary and proper clause, and probably 3) the general welfare clause. The tenth amendment is therefore irrelevant because Congress is acting pursuant to its enumerated powers in issuing regulation that pertains to substances transported by or touching on interstate commerce and that is intended to protect the general welfare of U.S. citizens. It has delegated enforcement authority to an executive branch agency, which is no inconsistent with any constitutional provision.

        If you think that's all unconstitutional, take it up with the SCOTUS. Article III says that the federal courts get to interpret the meaning of the constitution, not benjie on Digg.

        Your're welcome
      • loki49152, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1The problem is that:

        1. The Commerce Clause does not actually authorize the Federal Government to regulate any activity that 'touches on' interstate commerce. That decision was an instance of judicial misconduct, not an interpretation of the Constitution.

        2. The General Welfare clause means that the government has the ability to act on its enumerated powers, not that it should act for the "welfare of U.S. citizens". It assumes that the government is subordinate to citizens and is a reaffirmation of the limited nature and intent of the enumerated powers.

        Federal Law does override state law, but only in those areas that the Federal government has specifically been given power by the Constitution. The currently accepted interpretation of the Commerce Clause essentially gives the Feds absolute dictatorial power, which can not even plausibly be argued as the intent of the Framers, regardless of what syntactic gymnastics lawyers might be able to pull based on the wording of the clause.
  • pluto41, on 07/24/2008, -3/+6"Land of freedom and hope"
  • falafelkiosken, on 07/24/2008, -2/+10it's not a crime because it's hurting anyone, or is violating the basic freedoms granted by the constitution – it's a crime because the government says so and governments hate to be wrong
  • Andrwmorph, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4The responsible parties should be forced to explain themselves to the people whose medicine they seized.
    End this pointless war on drugs.
  • contact287, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8***** the police coming straight from the underground.
    • WiretapStudios, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Young ***** got it bad cuz I'm brown
  • ap44, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7All this over a plant that grows right in Earth's soil.
    • toxicshok, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2as much as I agree with marijuana legalization, its hippie crap like that that is delaying it. If you argue for legalization bring GOOD arguments to the table: statistics and data, not a logical fallacy.
    • WiretapStudios, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Or in my closet, under grow lights.
  • NickMacnab, on 07/24/2008, -3/+10What a ***** prison state we live in.
  • SenatorPenguin, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5Ignoring opinion on the rightful legality of marijuana, federal law says its illegal, state law says its legal. Isn't the whole idea that federal law trumps state? Perhaps it isn't within the rights of the federal government to schedule drugs, but it's now well-accepted. Nullification of federal laws by the states is what started the Civil War. I'm just saying that the status quo can't continue, a federal court needs to start overturning laws on one side or the other, because the people harmed by this dispute are those who have to abide by contradictory laws.
    • jeff419, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Dude, read the Constitution, especially Amendments 9 and 10. The States are supreme over the Feds.

      Beyond what any govt says you own your body and you can do with it as you please. If that's not the case then you accept your slavery with open arms.
      • nigh7dagger, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0If State law trumps Federal law, then I'll run for President of the CSA. Where can I take delivery of the slaves that were taken from my ancestors?

        That was the entire reason the Civil war was fought: to prove that federal law beats state law. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
    • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0"The States are supreme over the Feds."

      You ***** moron. The 10th amendment only says states have the power to regulate matters that the feds don't. Since the feds have the power to regulate for the "general welfare," that power is NOT granted to the states.

      Also, see Article IV, Cl. 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

      SO NO, THE STATES ARE NOT "SUPREME OVER THE FEDS" YOU IDIOT.
      • Midtowner, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Here, the interstate commerce clause is where the feds derive their power to regulate marijauna.
  • scrtyfrk, on 07/24/2008, -5/+4The problem here is that state governments are not doing enough to lobby the feds to legalize marijuana. I think once that basic disagreement is fixed, everything should be ok.
  • purkel, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8"doctors would have to amputate his leg to try to keep the cancer from spreading. Chemotherapy attacked Owen's cancer and his body, leaving him bald, gaunt, and vomiting the food he needed to recover. The amputation introduced Owen to a bizarre, new agony called phantom pain, and although doctors gave him powerful medication, nothing helped."

    They finally find something to relieve this poor kids pain, and the Fed busts the dispensary... thats really sad.
    • toxicshok, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6this boy is not a criminal, and even if he was, HE HAS ONE LEG AND IS IN PAIN!!! He is not dealing on the side, he is not a gang member, he is an innocent boy faced with something no one his age should have to go through: cancer. Instead of trying to make his life better, the feds came in and do what the feds do: Taking a big legal ***** all over him
      • purkel, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1at least the kid didnt get busted. the person who supplied the pot did. hopefully the kid can continue to get pot elsewhere.
  • possiblyneil, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Am I the only person who cannot see this site properly in Firefox?
    • tufftugg, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1 No, same here...when posting comments, it doesn't load, like it use too.
  • spongya77, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4It is a terrible thing to say, but I hope that these ***** starting from the sheriff to the DEA and all those idiots who dreamed up this "War on Drugs" will see their loved ones suffering, and the knowledge that only pot could ease their pain.
    Of course, this is reality: they would not be arrested, and intimidated if they were caught on using pot. For the big dogs the secret service would deliver the medical marijuana. Damn all these hypocrites to hell.
  • solidcube, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2Events like these are only a good thing for the coming legalization of marijuana.

    Also, perhaps there needs to be a Peoples' Police Force to meet the DEA with force of arms.
    • NickMacnab, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0Weed wont be legalized. The drug "prevention" industry is too huge and too many jobs would be lost if it was legalized.
      • WiretapStudios, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Wait...you must be joking. There would be double or triple that in a legal industry situation.
    • Tevediggs, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1It's sad to think that anyone using that excuse cares more about jobs than all the ppl that medical marijuana could help. Besides if it was legalized for medical purposes then the prevention industry would still have the job of preventing ppl without prescriptions from using it.
  • FlaNative, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5Why do web site designers write for IE?
  • c010rb1indusa, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3What ever happened to states rights. If the fed started banning guns I bet all these medical marijuana opposers would jump to the other side and start arguing that it was up to the states and not the fed. How can such a obvious display of discrimination be allowed to continue for so long without anything being done about it?
  • Striff, on 07/24/2008, -2/+9***** THIS COUNTRY!!!
    • nj10ii, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1***** you and the four others that dugg this up.
  • defektiv, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6the feds are pushing authority they don't have. its another version of debt that will eventually blow back into their faces. what angers me most are the "foot-soldiers" that are ruining peoples lives simply because their ignorant and paranoid leadership is telling them to.

    "someone told me to do it" i don't think will cover the guilt if they ever have to face the actual damage they are causing other people and the people around them. thank God for karma.
  • dampeal, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1520 years for murder or 100 years for not hurting anyone, in fact actually helping someone... ermm, somethings wrong here somewhere?!?!
  • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -8/+3Goddamn, the constitutionally illiterate ron paul idiots are out in full force today.

    Little lesson for you *****: the 10th Amendment only gives the states powers that aren't reserved to the feds. Since the feds have the power to regulate for the "general welfare" and the authority to regulate instrumentalities of commerce between the several states, that power is very clearly not reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.

    Secondly, even where the feds do allow the states to regulate the same subject matter as federal law, federal law trumps state law under the Supremacy clause of Article IV, Sec. 2

    And if you think Ron Paul himself gets to interpret the constitution any old way he pleases and cram it down out throats, read Article III and tell me how it's constitutional for him to do so.

    Sorry ron paul tards. Try actually reading the constitution in its entirety some day instead of mindlessly spewing Ron Paul's idiotic talking points.
    • newseamus, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Constitution aside; legislating morality makes no common sense.
      Your "general welfare" ends at my front door.
      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Sorry Ron Paul crybabies. Article III gives the Supreme Court the exclusive authority to interpret the constituion. Whispy ron paul emos on Digg don't have a say. Don't like it? Elect a different president who will appoint different SCOTUS justices.

        Until then, your pants pissing and $2 will buy you a cup of coffee.
      • thorstrongstone, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Your debate skills are terrible. Do you really think that you will convince people by immediately calling them "idiots?"

      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1"Your debate skills are terrible."

        And yet I have the full weight of every relevant authority on my side of the argument. Ron Paul tards love to deny reality and kick and scream whenever someone points out how baseless their arguments are.
    • babblefrog, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Umm... We are supposed to have constitutionally "limited government". If congress has the power to regulate for the "general welfare", where the hell are the limits? They can regulate anything! That argument makes a complete mockery of the 9th and 10th amendments.
      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/ ...

        Hey, take it up with Alexander Hamilton, co-author of the constitution.

        "The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition."

        Or take it up with the Supreme Court, who are given sole authority to interpret the constitution under Article III.
    • Midtowner, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1stagmire,

      You're right about the 10th, but wrong I think about the "general welfare" clause. It has been narrowly interpreted to refer more to taxing and spending powers of the government. See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.

      The power to regulate marijuana is derived from the commerce clause, Article I, Section 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution. I'll cut and paste my post from earlier in the thread which fully explained to a Paultard what was going on here:

      Marijuana prohibitions are a-ok under federal law. In fact, prohibitions incident to any channels or instrumentalities of trade are just fine, as are all laws regulating or effecting those channels and instrumentalities of trade. Since marijuana is a good and it's being sold, it's in interstate commerce. While the marijunana itself might be home grown, it's doubtless kept in bags and storage containers shipped in from somewhere out of state, perhaps fertilized with fertilzer made out of state, etc. That makes it 100% subject to the commerce clause of Article I of the Constitution.

      California's law is perfectly fine -- it was passed pursuant to California's reserved powers (a/k/a police powers) under the 10th Amendment. Is that enough? Absolutely not.

      There happens to be an otherwise constitutional federal law which contradicts the state law (see above as to constitutionality). The California law says that Californians may buy and sell marijuna for medical purposes while the federal law says marijuna may not be sold or possessed or grown.

      I will now refer you to the "Supremacy Clause," arising under Article IV, cl.2 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause says that federal law will be "the supreme law of the land." That means that otherwise constitutional state laws which are contra to constitutional federal laws are completely preempted. That means that California's law is nul and void.

      California's executive doesn't have to enforce the federal laws, but they cannot stop the feds from coming in and enforcing those same laws.
      • stagmire, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I realize that our drug laws have been upheld under the commerce clause and not the general welfare clause, but I believe the general welfare clause could be invoked here as well if necessary, as this is the proffered justification for the federal government's spending on health care, and drug production/consumption could conceivably treated as a health issue.

        I'm also not a big fan of the way in which the commerce clause has been applied to govern CA's marijuana industry. The hook that was used in Raich had nothing to do with the containers used to ship marijuana or the fertilizer used to grow it, but the effect of CA's marijuana production on the interstate drug trade. Even though CA marijuana is produced and consumed locally, the feds argued (and SCOTUS agreed) that it had the effect of depressing demand for Marijuana grown in other states. This is Wickard v. Filburn all over again. I'll accept it as the law, but I'm not crazy about it.
      • Midtowner, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I believe the general welfare clause (and I'm straining to remember my conlaw I class) only applies to spending powers, e.g., the feds can spend/withhold money from the states so long as they have a "general welfare" purpose for doing so and that the purpose for the money is related to the federal end being sought.

        A good example of that would be the feds setting a national drinking age at 21 and withholding highway funds from states which did not subscribe to the federal agenda.

        As for Filburn, while it's more on point than probably anything, there are all kinds of cases finding that the commerce clause can be used to do damned near anything. Heck, it pretty much could regulate anything until U.S. v. Lopez limited its application to channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce or anything else which could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (striking down a federal law which forbade rape based upon interstate commerce grounds claiming that a woman would have an effect on interstate commerce).

        At any rate, I think precedent is clearly on the side of this being a commerce clause issue rather than a general welfare clause issue.
  • boomerang42, on 07/24/2008, -10/+4BAWWW hippie douchebag liberals can't light their doobies without being caught.
    Get over it.
    Okay, you can bury me now.

    (oh and I could care less about people with cancer)
    • lyndikhajiit, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3You need to get glaucoma or something. At 16 I don't think you're even old enough to have an intelligent opinion in this matter. This boy was more like a jock than a hippie. ***** could happen to anyone. Even you.
    • armoreddillo, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2don't feed the troll..
  • sultanica, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2when was the last time the federal government did anything for anyone besides itself?
  • eavesdrop, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Wow, a prescription from Stanford. That's like telling the MIT guys they're wrong about something when you have no clue about technology. I applaud this video, fighting negative propaganda with positive needs to be done more often. I like Carey's question at the beginning, it really sets the tone.
  • lyndikhajiit, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0What we need to do is find a way to give one of the fed's top officials a crippling disease or disability where nothing helps him but medical marijuana. We would see their ideas change real fast.
  • kotrin, on 07/24/2008, -1/+16Note to self: Killing people gets less jail then marijuana...

    /me grabs a gun and walks out the door
  • eurodele, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Only one theory makes sense: the Feds are determined to wage their "war on drugs" and crush all marijuana vendors, even those providing the herb to sick people under medical supervision, because these selfsame Feds, largely through the offices of the CIA, totally pwn the drug market and don't like competition. Wake up and smell the ganja.
  • skiner24, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Murderers get less time, what the hell is wrong with this picture!
  • funkymoose, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1bleh. Video is so bias. I agree they it should be legal for people who need it. But at the same time they ignore how heavily abused it is and they're never going to okay if for minors so get over it. Don't break the law if you can't handle getting caught. I guess it was worth the risk to them at them time. They also make dumb comparisons like the sentencing for first degree murder and the sentence the seller will get if "all" charges go through.
    • TaylorSPL, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Of course the video is biased. The laws regarding marijuana are ***** retarded. Who cares how abused it is, if it helps the people who need it. There will always be drug addicts, might as well let the people who need it have access to it. Look at any prescription pain killer or drug for that matter and tell me we should make it illegal because some people abuse it. *****, who are you to tell me what I can put in my body anyways.

      In other news, America is not free.
  • PuterPrsn, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2The problem here is that federal law trumps state law - hat's off to the Democrats for that one! Same thing is happening with other laws - like abortion, lending, etc. The local folks' habits and wants don't matter, it will be settled at the federal level only!

    If local law trumped federal, you wouldn't have the problem. VOTE RON PAUL!!
  • ProjectGSX, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Stories like this are just sickening.
  • winterisbetter, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4This makes me so aggravated. That marijuana law and the TRUTH about the plant are buried. All because of false propaganda 70+ years ago. When will someone set the record straight about marijuana so that federal laws can be changed!?
    • ROBINEW, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2REFER MADNESS SURVIVES. Yes, this is very disturbing.
    • Kershalt, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1they know its not harmfull the only reason its still illegal is it would completely kill the pharmacies. this is a cure all plant the golden goose of medicine if you will, It can be used in several forms as tea,food, condensed into pills, and even just dried and burned(heck they can just vaporize it for 60-80% of the overall affect). on top of the many easy ways it can be used it is one of the only presrcibed medications that cant be ODed on. It has no major side effects and only minor ones that can be cured with a bag of cheetos and a moutain dew. If they were to legalize it overnight all the Pharamcies in the nation would lose 50+% of there buisness. Now if you look at how much money the goverment has made off of siezed property and materials from the hundreds of thousands of busts you will see why they dont want to stop this cash cow. you think fighting the war on drugs is expensive they make more in a year off of busting the supposed criminals then most of us will make in are life.
  • razorsedge555, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1middle class family + marijuana = thousands of dollars in legal fees for county and federal prosecutor's offices
    lower class meth user + murder = tax burden for public defender's office and penal system
    the government makes more money off of drugs being illegal. unfortunately, we have already been down this road during Prohibition. once again criminal gangs are distributing substances in demand in the general population. and killing each other and innocent bystanders as a result.
    if we legalized pot and prostitution, the country would be out of debt and have a healthy economy. but then all of those attorneys and law enforcement types would be out of a job.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.