letter from the white house i received today

0calli said:

Gotta love that in the US you get more time for a few plants growing then


THIS STUFF HEHE

Click to expand...

thats a fat pile of booger sugar

My point about the constitutionality of marijuana laws is this: If the marijuana is grown, traded and consumed in one state, without any form of interstate commerce, where does the fed gov get its power ( constitutionaly)? Montana had a case against the ATF where a manufacture of firearms made and sold guns to Montana citezens only, and they won their case in court based on the lack of any interstate commerce being involved. If they can win on that , then why not us as well???

Randm said:

My point about the constitutionality of marijuana laws is this: If the marijuana is grown, traded and consumed in one state, without any form of interstate commerce, where does the fed gov get its power ( constitutionaly)? Montana had a case against the ATF where a manufacture of firearms made and sold guns to Montana citezens only, and they won their case in court based on the lack of any interstate commerce being involved. If they can win on that , then why not us as well???

Click to expand...

The recent ruling was based on a ruling in the 30's. Farmers were told how much grain they could grow. One farmer grew more than his allotment and fed it to his horses. The court ruled that even though the grain never left his farm, the fact that he had an excess meant that he would not buy grain for his livestock. If he would not buy grain than his growing it had an effect on grain commerce both inside and outside his state. SCOTUS applied this precidence to the other ruling - I don't remember the name now, it was a pair of women who had their own seeds, used California fertilizers and california water and california air to grow california marijiuana for their own consumption. SCOTUS ruled that had they not done that, they might have been inclined to buy it and buying it would have had an effect on all of marijuana commerce.

I'm not saying I agree with the ruling but that was how they arrived at the decision they did.

canndo said:

The recent ruling was based on a ruling in the 30's. Farmers were told how much grain they could grow. One farmer grew more than his allotment and fed it to his horses. The court ruled that even though the grain never left his farm, the fact that he had an excess meant that he would not buy grain for his livestock. If he would not buy grain than his growing it had an effect on grain commerce both inside and outside his state. SCOTUS applied this precidence to the other ruling - I don't remember the name now, it was a pair of women who had their own seeds, used California fertilizers and california water and california air to grow california marijiuana for their own consumption. SCOTUS ruled that had they not done that, they might have been inclined to buy it and buying it would have had an effect on all of marijuana commerce.

I'm not saying I agree with the ruling but that was how they arrived at the decision they did.

Click to expand...

Now that is some fucked up and twisted logic imo.

canndo said:

The recent ruling was based on a ruling in the 30's. Farmers were told how much grain they could grow. One farmer grew more than his allotment and fed it to his horses. The court ruled that even though the grain never left his farm, the fact that he had an excess meant that he would not buy grain for his livestock. If he would not buy grain than his growing it had an effect on grain commerce both inside and outside his state. SCOTUS applied this precidence to the other ruling - I don't remember the name now, it was a pair of women who had their own seeds, used California fertilizers and california water and california air to grow california marijiuana for their own consumption. SCOTUS ruled that had they not done that, they might have been inclined to buy it and buying it would have had an effect on all of marijuana commerce.

I'm not saying I agree with the ruling but that was how they arrived at the decision they did.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

precedent set so that the Fed can make ANYTHING interstate commerce that it wants to. The judge on that case was probably well compensated to make that ruling.

The whole thing is because the government was having a hard time manipulating the economy by trying to cause wheat scarcity to drive up prices.

This is where we see the strangeness of attempting to apply the theoretical to law. Of course, if two ladies in California don't buy pot it has an effect on the entire commerse of the product, no one could deny that. Now try to quantify this effect, something that ordinarly, judges insist on. Judges can't make determinations on someone being so slightly harmed or only potentialy harmed by a certain action of another and they come out and say that very thing BUT, in this case they ignore the fact that no one could ever quantify such an economic effect because the effect is surely so very very slight.

I normally hate Clarance Thomas, I don't agree with many of his decisions and I don't like how he acts but his descent was couched in classical reason. Growing marijuana in your back yard for your own use has nothing what so ever to do with interstate commerce and that is what he said.

What we find most often from both sides but more often from the right is that the justices "mine dicta", in other words, they take points that have little to do with actual decisions and apply them in a way that has them able to rule any way they wish.

So, I was a decade off and it was chickens and not horses. Thanks for the link NoDrama.