Unbelievable but the Supremes (the justices, not the band), at the
urging of the Bush administration, now deem it fit to declare that
federal authority supercedes the states's when it comes to enforcing
drug laws.

IIRC Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were of the same opinion
regarding the sodomy law.

And I thought a Republican court will always strive to recognize the
individual state's authority. :-)

Schizoid Man said:

"Unbelievable but the Supremes (the justices, not the band), at the
urging of the Bush administration, now deem it fit to declare that
federal authority supercedes the states's when it comes to enforcing
drug laws."

This may come as a surprise to you, but the Administration could urge
all they want and won't change the way the court votes. It was a cinch
that they were going to decide in favor of Federal authority, the wierd
thing is the precedent they used to do it.

"IIRC Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were of the same opinion
regarding the sodomy law."

Federal Law always trumps state law on any given issue, if they are in
conflict.

"And I thought a Republican court will always strive to recognize the
individual state's authority. :-)''

When the states write law that conflicts with existing Federal law the
states ALWAYS LOSE.

What the Feds and many of the states have forgotten is that the
Constitution is there to limit the intrusion by government on the lives
of citizens.

If people want to smoke pot for any reason then what reason has the
government to be bothering people about it?

wrote:
Schizoid Man said:

"Unbelievable but the Supremes (the justices, not the band), at the
urging of the Bush administration, now deem it fit to declare that
federal authority supercedes the states's when it comes to enforcing
drug laws."

This may come as a surprise to you, but the Administration could urge
all they want and won't change the way the court votes. It was a cinch
that they were going to decide in favor of Federal authority, the wierd
thing is the precedent they used to do it.

"IIRC Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were of the same opinion
regarding the sodomy law."

Federal Law always trumps state law on any given issue, if they are in
conflict.

"And I thought a Republican court will always strive to recognize the
individual state's authority. :-)''

When the states write law that conflicts with existing Federal law the
states ALWAYS LOSE.

What the Feds and many of the states have forgotten is that the
Constitution is there to limit the intrusion by government on the lives
of citizens.



Is that the one page version or the unabridged version?





If people want to smoke pot for any reason then what reason has the
government to be bothering people about it?



Ask the supreme court jusatices.





Scott Wheeler

Is that the one page version or the unabridged version?


If people want to smoke pot for any reason then what reason has the
government to be bothering people about it?



Ask the supreme court jusatices.

Scott Wheeler


They hardly the only people involved in the problem, in fact there was
word that if the law was changed by Congress, it wouldn't be a problem.

If you go back far enough you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
FDR and his attempts to pack the Supreme Court and the Justices
response.

That landmark 1942 decision called Wickard v. Filburn opened the door
for congressional regulation reaching down to the state and local level
- as long as whatever was being regulated had an impact on "commerce,"
as it was broadly defined by the high court.

This was the decision that opened the door for the New Deal. This
definition permitted an explosive growth in national legislation that
continued unabated until 1995, when the justices by a 5-to-4 vote
struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act. In 2000, the same 5-to-4
majority invalidated a portion of the Violence Against Women Act that
authorized victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers
in federal court.

Facts of the Case
Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage
allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive
which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat.
Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He
claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for
his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the
excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own
use.


Question Presented
Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in
violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate
activities local in nature?


Conclusion
According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption,
which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is
that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may
still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a
substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this
irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time
have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the
influence of the uncooperative "nine old men," a majority of the
justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause
like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture's
power to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . "The marketing
of intrastate milk," wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case,
"which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to
break down price regulation of the latter." Yes, so? What was the
Court's point? Only that nothing - especially not liberty - should
be permitted to get in the way of the national government's power to
regulate the economy.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices
unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if
Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -
and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price
of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might
be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market,
thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it.

The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed:

[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would
otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown
wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

As Epstein said, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the
consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several
states?'" For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice
of Mr. Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being
protected:

Bottom line: It is very unfair to claim that it is the Bush
Administration that should be blamed for the decison in the case of
Medical Marijauna, since if Congress at any time had the balls to
change the law, the decion would be much different.

I lurked here for a while before I started posting, but I don't recall
ever seeing anything from Mr. McKelvy in favor of a criminal penalty
for pot.

May we assume that using his name in the header is typical
hate-mongering from a Liberal towards anyone you think leans to the
right?

Of course if you can produce any quotes that indicate he was in favor
of criminalization of pot, I will of course retract the above
statement.

wrote:
Is that the one page version or the unabridged version?


If people want to smoke pot for any reason then what reason has the
government to be bothering people about it?



Ask the supreme court jusatices.

Scott Wheeler


They hardly the only people involved in the problem,


They are just the final word.



in fact there was
word that if the law was changed by Congress, it wouldn't be a problem.



IMO it would be great. "Problem" is often in the eye of tyhe beholder.
This congress will never pass a law to allow people to smoke pot.





If you go back far enough you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
FDR and his attempts to pack the Supreme Court and the Justices
response.




That is a stretch.





That landmark 1942 decision called Wickard v. Filburn opened the door
for congressional regulation reaching down to the state and local level
- as long as whatever was being regulated had an impact on "commerce,"
as it was broadly defined by the high court.

This was the decision that opened the door for the New Deal. This
definition permitted an explosive growth in national legislation that
continued unabated until 1995, when the justices by a 5-to-4 vote
struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act. In 2000, the same 5-to-4
majority invalidated a portion of the Violence Against Women Act that
authorized victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers
in federal court.

Facts of the Case
Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage
allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive
which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat.
Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He
claimed that he wanted thewheat for use on his farm, including feed for
his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the
excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own
use.


Question Presented
Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in
violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate
activities local in nature?


Conclusion
According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption,
which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is
that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may
still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a
substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this
irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time
have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

After President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court to dilute the
influence of the uncooperative "nine old men," a majority of the
justices took to the most expansive definition of the commerce clause
like a drunk to drink. The Court blessed the secretary of agriculture's
power to set minimum prices for milk sold intrastate . "The marketing
of intrastate milk," wrote the Court in the 1942 Wrightwood Dairy case,
"which competes with that shipped interstate would tend seriously to
break down price regulation of the latter." Yes, so? What was the
Court's point? Only that nothing - especially not liberty - should
be permitted to get in the way of the national government's power to
regulate the economy.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices
unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if
Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -
and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price
of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might
be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market,
thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it.

The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed:

[The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would
otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown
wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce.

As Epstein said, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the
consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several
states?'" For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice
of Mr. Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being
protected:


One probelm with the internet is just about anyone can cut and paste.
Doesn't make them any less clueless.




Bottom line: It is very unfair to claim that it is the Bush
Administration that should be blamed for the decison in the case of
Medical Marijauna, since if Congress at any time had the balls to
change the law, the decion would be much different.



You consider the Supreme court to be part of the Bush administration?
Interesting. I suspect he would like that.




Scott Wheeler

Schizoid Man wrote:
Unbelievable but the Supremes (the justices, not the band), at the
urging of the Bush administration, now deem it fit to declare that
federal authority supercedes the states's when it comes to enforcing
drug laws.

IIRC Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were of the same opinion
regarding the sodomy law.

And I thought a Republican court will always strive to recognize the
individual state's authority. :-)

Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.

johnebravo836 said:

Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.

If marijuana were a legal, regulated consumer product, it would probably cost
the same as tobacco. Even loaded up with sin taxes, excise taxes, and luxury
taxes. But nobody smokes a pack a day of weed (except Klingons).

NYOB123 SAID:

I lurked here for a while before I started posting, but I don't recall
ever seeing anything from Mr. McKelvy in favor of a criminal penalty
for pot.

That's because I have always been in favor of legalization of all
so-called recreational drugs.

May we assume that using his name in the header is typical
hate-mongering from a Liberal towards anyone you think leans to the
right?

It wouldn't be the first time. Schizo knows I am a Libertarian and as
such I am in favor of removing all laws regarding victimless crimes.

Apparently, lack of nookie has further screwed with his brain.

johnebravo836 said to Schizo:

Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.

And like most lefties he fails to note that the ONLY serious
consideration of legalization has come from those he would consider
right wingers.
He would also likely fail to recognize that there have been left wing
majorities in Congress that never acted to decriminalize pot, and in
fact never even entertained the idea of discussing it.

Mickey, you are the WORST sockpuppeter in the history of Usenet.

ever seeing anything from Mr. McKelvy in favor of a criminal penalty

That's because I have always been in favor of legalization of all
so-called recreational drugs.

"I"? "You"? "Him"? "Them"?

You're such a dolt, Mickey. Have some more bugs.


Apparently, lack of nookie has further screwed with his brain.

Schizo may be a wax crayon, but you are a mudpie.

wrote:

It wouldn't be the first time. Schizo knows I am a Libertarian and as
such I am in favor of removing all laws regarding victimless crimes.

How would I know that? To the best of my knowlegde, the only person who
has stated repeatedly on this forum that he is a Libertarian is Michael
McKelvy.

You have emphatically denied that you are him. Therefore, I can conclude
that whether or not you are Mickey, you are most certainly subverting
the truth.

Apparently, lack of nookie has further screwed with his brain.

If that were to be the case, you'd have been in the lunatic asylum by now.

johnebravo836 wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

And I thought a Republican court will always strive to recognize the
individual state's authority. :-)


Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.

Yes, I admit it does come as a surprise to find Thomas and Rehnquist
both dissenting. Scalia's votes, however, have been entirely consistent
with the widely-held belief that he an a right-wing zealot.

wrote:

johnebravo836 said to Schizo:

Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.

And like most lefties he fails to note that the ONLY serious
consideration of legalization has come from those he would consider
right wingers.

Really? Would John "cover the breast of the naked justice statue"
Ashcroft be one of them?

He would also likely fail to recognize that there have been left wing
majorities in Congress that never acted to decriminalize pot, and in
fact never even entertained the idea of discussing it.

GMAMFB, Mickey. If the Left was really the noble, utopian cause that you
paint it to be, then the Dems would never be reconsidering their
positions on lightning rods like gay marriage or abortion.

Admittedly, they don't have the zeal that Republicans have shown when
acting as the custodians of the public's morality, but they are
certainly not far behind.

George Middius wrote:
johnebravo836 said:


Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.


If marijuana were a legal, regulated consumer product, it would probably cost
the same as tobacco. Even loaded up with sin taxes, excise taxes, and luxury
taxes. But nobody smokes a pack a day of weed (except Klingons).

I don't disagree; the current drug prohibition policy makes about as
much sense as alcohol prohibition did. Of course, there's next to no
political will in favor of changing this anytime soon.

My point was simply that, contrary to what the original poster
suggested, the decision does not in any way represent some sort of
victory for the conservative faction of the court. Clearly, the issue
foremost in the minds of the justices was states' rights and the scope
of federal authority. This is perfectly obvious from reading the
majority opinion (by Stevens), and the concurring opinion (by Scalia)
and the two dissenting opinions (by Thomas and O'Connor). Anyone who
suggests that this is some big conservative Republican victory either
hasn't read the opinions or doesn't understand them.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...3-1454.ZS.html

johnebravo836 wrote:

My point was simply that, contrary to what the original poster
suggested, the decision does not in any way represent some sort of
victory for the conservative faction of the court. Clearly, the issue
foremost in the minds of the justices was states' rights and the scope
of federal authority. This is perfectly obvious from reading the
majority opinion (by Stevens), and the concurring opinion (by Scalia)
and the two dissenting opinions (by Thomas and O'Connor). Anyone who
suggests that this is some big conservative Republican victory either
hasn't read the opinions or doesn't understand them.

I am the original poster and I had not read the opinions.

I admit that jumping to the conclusion of a conservative Republican
victory was somewhat premature.

I must say I am surprised.

Schizoid Man wrote:

johnebravo836 wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:


And I thought a Republican court will always strive to recognize the
individual state's authority. :-)



Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two
of the three most conservative justices dissented.


Yes, I admit it does come as a surprise to find Thomas and Rehnquist
both dissenting. Scalia's votes, however, have been entirely consistent
with the widely-held belief that he an a right-wing zealot.

And in this case, he voted with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer -- although he notably did not join in the majority opinion, but
rather wrote a separate concurring opinion. I fail to see how this vote
shows him to be a right-wing zealot. Mind you, I have not the slightest
doubt that he *is* a right-wing zealot -- and an hypocrite and
compulsive liar besides -- but this vote doesn't show it. In fact, this
is one of the rare instances when he's actually abandoned the so-called
conservative principles that he pretends to believe in in order to side
with the liberals on the court.

johnebravo836 wrote:

And in this case, he voted with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and
Breyer -- although he notably did not join in the majority opinion, but
rather wrote a separate concurring opinion. I fail to see how this vote
shows him to be a right-wing zealot. Mind you, I have not the slightest
doubt that he *is* a right-wing zealot -- and an hypocrite and
compulsive liar besides -- but this vote doesn't show it. In fact, this
is one of the rare instances when he's actually abandoned the so-called
conservative principles that he pretends to believe in in order to side
with the liberals on the court.

I have not read Scalia's opinion, but given his track record I would be
inclined to think that his reasons for siding with the liberals stemmed
from some moral crusade.

George "Exclusive Diet Soda Drinker" Middius wrote :

johnebravo836 said:


Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.


If marijuana were a legal, regulated consumer product, it would probably cost
the same as tobacco. Even loaded up with sin taxes, excise taxes, and luxury
taxes.

Once again you are wrong, idiot.
Marijuana is more difficult to cultivate than tobacco... At
least if you want to get something slightly different than
that :

http://www.chanvre-diffusion.com/

Why don't you speak about something you really know for
once, eh George ?


But nobody smokes a pack a day of weed (except Klingons).

Perhaps you should try but I doubt it has any effect on a
borg like you. ;-)

Schizoid Man said:

I have not read Scalia's opinion, but given his track record I would be
inclined to think that his reasons for siding with the liberals stemmed
from some moral crusade.

Yes, he's a nasty little beetle of a man. In a couple of his opinions, he's said
that hatred based on race or other innate factors is OK as long as it's applied
equally.

He'd probably have a shot at Prime Minister if he were French.

George Middius wrote:

Schizoid Man said:


I have not read Scalia's opinion, but given his track record I would be
inclined to think that his reasons for siding with the liberals stemmed

from some moral crusade.

Yes, he's a nasty little beetle of a man. In a couple of his opinions, he's said
that hatred based on race or other innate factors is OK as long as it's applied
equally.

Even that's okay. But when he and Thomas begin to ram their
anti-Sodomite Christian values down our collective throats, the entire
experience is quite emetic.

He'd probably have a shot at Prime Minister if he were French.

Schizoid Man said:

Yes, he's a nasty little beetle of a man. In a couple of his opinions, he's said
that hatred based on race or other innate factors is OK as long as it's applied
equally.

Even that's okay.

No, it's not okay. In America, we don't have castes, and everybody is
supposed to be treated the same under the law. In fact, the judicial system
is supposed to *protect* people from discrimination, or at least give them a
peaceful avenue of redress.

Thomas's posturing is precisely the opposite of what a jurist should
profess.

But when he and Thomas begin to ram their
anti-Sodomite Christian values down our collective throats, the entire
experience is quite emetic.

OK, that is worse.

He'd probably have a shot at Prime Minister if he were French.

What, no defense of La Patrie?

Schizo nisses again:



wrote:
It wouldn't be the first time. Schizo knows I am a Libertarian and as
such I am in favor of removing all laws regarding victimless crimes.


How would I know that? To the best of my knowlegde, the only person who
has stated repeatedly on this forum that he is a Libertarian is Michael
McKelvy.

That was me outing myself.

You have emphatically denied that you are him. Therefore, I can conclude
that whether or not you are Mickey, you are most certainly subverting
the truth.

See above.

Apparently, lack of nookie has further screwed with his brain.


If that were to be the case, you'd have been in the lunatic asylum by
now.

But it's not the case I get all I need ir want and am not in any asylum
other than the one that is RAO.

wrote:

How would I know that? To the best of my knowlegde, the only person who
has stated repeatedly on this forum that he is a Libertarian is Michael
McKelvy.


That was me outing myself.

I see. Is "outing" yourself a euphemism for subversion of truth, i.e. lying?

You have emphatically denied that you are him. Therefore, I can conclude
that whether or not you are Mickey, you are most certainly subverting
the truth.

See above.

See above.

If that were to be the case, you'd have been in the lunatic asylum by
now.

But it's not the case I get all I need ir want and am not in any asylum
other than the one that is RAO.

Judging by the construction of the above sentence, I would beg to
differ. Care to re-write it?

Scott Wheeler said:

Ask the supreme court jusatices.


Scott Wheeler


They hardly the only people involved in the problem,



They are just the final word.

On the law, yes. There was no other choice than ro find as they did.

in fact there was
word that if the law was changed by Congress, it wouldn't be a problem.


IMO it would be great. "Problem" is often in the eye of the beholder.
This congress will never pass a law to allow people to smoke pot.

And neither did any Democrat controlled one, nor will they ever IMO,
since there is no real demand from the people.

If you go back far enough you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
FDR and his attempts to pack the Supreme Court and the Justices
response.


That is a stretch

Not really. No such decision would have come about if FDR hadn't
gotten the Supremes scared.

One probelm with the internet is just about anyone can cut and paste.
Doesn't make them any less clueless.

Funny I think the problem is that it gives easy access to history and
helps put it into context. The Supreme Court could not have made the
decison they did without the precedent of Wickard v Filburn.

Bottom line: It is very unfair to claim that it is the Bush
Administration that should be blamed for the decison in the case of
Medical Marijauna, since if Congress at any time had the balls to
change the law, the decion would be much different.



You consider the Supreme court to be part of the Bush administration?
Interesting. I suspect he would like that.

No, but apparently Schizo does, since he seemed to think the decision
was ath the behest of the Bush administration.

Schizo goes off:

And like most lefties he fails to note that the ONLY serious
consideration of legalization has come from those he would consider
right wingers.



Really? Would John "cover the breast of the naked justice statue"
Ashcroft be one of them?

No, but at least one Republican judge would be.

Schizoid Man Jun 7, 4:14 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Schizoid Man - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:14:42 -0700
Local: Tues,Jun 7 2005 4:14 pm
Subject: Another victory for McKelvy-ists
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



wrote:
johnebravo836 said to Schizo:

Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.


And like most lefties he fails to note that the ONLY serious
consideration of legalization has come from those he would consider
right wingers.



Really? Would John "cover the breast of the naked justice statue"
Ashcroft be one of them?


He would also likely fail to recognize that there have been left wing
majorities in Congress that never acted to decriminalize pot, and in
fact never even entertained the idea of discussing it.


GMAMFB, Mickey. If the Left was really the noble, utopian cause that you
paint it to be, then the Dems would never be reconsidering their
positions on lightning rods like gay marriage or abortion.

I never considered them to be anything but what they are, oppurtunists,
and socialists, who never saw a tax or regulation they didn't like.

They are being found out and suffering because of it. That's why
papers like the NY Times and L.A. Times are losing subscribers by the
boatload. I can remember when the Sunday LA Times was huge. These
days it's hardly more than a weekday edition.

Admittedly, they don't have the zeal that Republicans have shown when
acting as the custodians of the public's morality, but they are
certainly not far behind.

It's leftists like Lieberman who have discussed censoring Hollywood.

Neither side has been a becon of freedom of thought and action,
especially if it gets them votes.

The only reason IMO the left is a bit more tolerant of deviant behavior
is it helps keep the masses from getting as ****ed as they might
otherwise be from being deprived of their liberty incrementally.

Lionel said:

Marijuana is more difficult to cultivate than tobacco... At
least if you want to get something slightly different than
that :

Not really, all you need is plenty of sun and very little water and
nature will do most of the work.

wrote:

Schizo goes off:

The only reason IMO the left is a bit more tolerant of deviant behavior
is it helps keep the masses from getting as ****ed as they might
otherwise be from being deprived of their liberty incrementally.

I'm glad you at least have the clarity of mind and balance of thought to
call it "deviant behaviour".

wrote:
Scott Wheeler said:

Ask the supreme court jusatices.


Scott Wheeler


They hardly the only people involved in the problem,



They are just the final word.

On the law, yes. There was no other choice than ro find as they did.




Wrong. There were three possible outcomes. That means three choices.





in fact there was
word that if the law was changed by Congress, it wouldn't be a problem.


IMO it would be great. "Problem" is often in the eye of the beholder.
This congress will never pass a law to allow people to smoke pot.

And neither did any Democrat controlled one, nor will they ever IMO,
since there is no real demand from the people.


I disagree. There is such a demand but it may not have the weight
needed to be served.





If you go back far enough you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
FDR and his attempts to pack the Supreme Court and the Justices
response.


That is a stretch

Not really.


No, it is a ridiculous stretch to blame FDR for anything *this* court
does. May as well blame the comet that killed the dinosaurs.




No such decision would have come about if FDR hadn't
gotten the Supremes scared.



Again, huge stretch. Or did you not know that none of these justices
served while FDR was president?






One probelm with the internet is just about anyone can cut and paste.
Doesn't make them any less clueless.

Funny I think the problem is that it gives easy access to history and
helps put it into context.



Access to and understanding of are very very different.





The Supreme Court could not have made the
decison they did without the precedent of Wickard v Filburn.



They can rule on whatever comes before them if they so choose.





Bottom line: It is very unfair to claim that it is the Bush
Administration that should be blamed for the decison in the case of
Medical Marijauna, since if Congress at any time had the balls to
change the law, the decion would be much different.



You consider the Supreme court to be part of the Bush administration?
Interesting. I suspect he would like that.

No, but apparently Schizo does, since he seemed to think the decision
was ath the behest of the Bush administration.


Is that what you got from his post? I think it was more a comment on
likemindedness of the court and the administration. We can let Schizo
clarify that for both of us.




Scott Wheeler

wrote:

They are being found out and suffering because of it. That's why
papers like the NY Times and L.A. Times are losing subscribers by the
boatload. I can remember when the Sunday LA Times was huge. These
days it's hardly more than a weekday edition.

More spin. Newspaper circulation has been on the decline in America, a
country where they were never very popular to begin with, for a number
of years.

Or are you going to pull some fact out of your backside that will
suggest that it is only liberal papers that are facing such a decline

It's leftists like Lieberman who have discussed censoring Hollywood.

If I recall Tom DeLay wanted to the show Nip Tuck to be taken off the
show last year. A cable TV show no less.

Neither side has been a becon of freedom of thought and action,
especially if it gets them votes.

Yep. Apparently the Republicans are not above changing their ethics
rules to keep one of their most effective fundraisers in power.

a écrit :
Lionel said:


Marijuana is more difficult to cultivate than tobacco... At
least if you want to get something slightly different than
that :


Not really, all you need is plenty of sun and very little water and
nature will do most of the work.

We are speaking about culture and production McKelvy. Not
about the puny miserable thing you have on your balcony. ;-)

The yield compare to tobacco would be about 80% less. This
would impact the relative production cost and at constante
taxe rates the selling price.
So Middius is wrong. Nothing new.

George Môron Middius wrote :

Schizoid Man said:

He'd probably have a shot at Prime Minister if he were French.


What, no defense of La Patrie?

Before to try snooker with us you should get few lessons, eh
GeÔrge ?

;-)

George Middius a écrit :

He'd probably have a shot at Prime Minister if he were French.

Paris Mayor is an homosexual George, not a *gay*, just an
homosexual. :-D

George "Mudslinger" Middius said:


Mickey, you are the WORST sockpuppeter in the history of Usenet.

I guess I should have gotten lessons from you, you seem to have so
many.
It was never really a particularly serious attempt. Not nearly as good
as your Blueboy attempt. :-)


ever seeing anything from Mr. McKelvy in favor of a criminal penalty
That's because I have always been in favor of legalization of all
so-called recreational drugs.


"I"? "You"? "Him"? "Them"?

Me.

You're such a dolt, Mickey. Have some more bugs.

No thanks, you go ahead.


Apparently, lack of nookie has further screwed with his brain.


Schizo may be a wax crayon, but you are a mudpie.

And you're a ****head, your point?

Scott Wheeler said:



, it is a ridiculous stretch to blame FDR for anything *this* court
does. May as well blame the comet that killed the dinosaurs.

I don't blame FDR for "every" thing this court does, but the precedent
they used re medical reefer, was as I said. The case of Wickard v
Filburn was the result of fear by the court under FDR, and it was quite
possibly one of the most ridiculous and harmful decisions ever made by
any US Supreme Court. It left the door wide open for the government to
come up with a host of new ways to **** with people.

Is that what you got from his post? I think it was more a comment on
likemindedness of the court and the administration. We can let Schizo
clarify that for both of us.

Here's the quote: Unbelievable but the Supremes (the justices, not the
band), at the
urging of the Bush administration, now deem it fit to declare that
federal authority supercedes the states's when it comes to enforcing
drug laws.

Note the reference to urging from the Bush administration.

Scizo said:



wrote:
They are being found out and suffering because of it. That's why
papers like the NY Times and L.A. Times are losing subscribers by the
boatload. I can remember when the Sunday LA Times was huge. These
days it's hardly more than a weekday edition.


More spin. Newspaper circulation has been on the decline in America, a
country where they were never very popular to begin with, for a number
of years.

In the case of the 2 papers I mentioned their decline is very
trackable. The LA paper has been sinking like a stone since they tried
their hatchet job on our current governor while he was a candidate.
Someday I'll have to learn how to spell Schwarzenegger.

Or are you going to pull some fact out of your backside that will
suggest that it is only liberal papers that are facing such a decline

EEEWWWW I hate to see where you store your facts.
I would simply note that all the former media strongholds are suffering
losses since the advent of more conservative outlets like talk radio
and the internet.

It's leftists like Lieberman who have discussed censoring Hollywood.


If I recall Tom DeLay wanted to the show Nip Tuck to be taken off the
show last year. A cable TV show no less.

Yet another reason I'm glad I don't live in Texas. The 3 best TV shows
IMO are in no particular order Nip Tuck, The Shield, and Rescue Me. A
strong contender just showed up on BBC America of all places, in the
form of Night Detective, but the accents will keep it from being more
widely available.

Neither side has been a becon of freedom of thought and action,
especially if it gets them votes.


Yep. Apparently the Republicans are not above changing their ethics
rules to keep one of their most effective fundraisers in power.

Ahem. It's not the GOP who are changing their ethics on this issue,
they have always stood for their version of "wholesome" art.

Personally I support abolition of the FCC and the nonsense that the
there is an obligation on the part of bradcasters to do anything other
than make a profit by broadcasting anything that they can find an
audience for. Cable TV has shown that niche programming is viable and
that people will watch some pretty wierd stuff.

Have you sought out a cure for your Hawaiian disease?

Lionel said:

Marijuana is more difficult to cultivate than tobacco... At
least if you want to get something slightly different than
that :


Not really, all you need is plenty of sun and very little water and
nature will do most of the work.



We are speaking about culture and production McKelvy. Not
about the puny miserable thing you have on your balcony. ;-)

I don't have a balcony, I have a backyard.

The yield compare to tobacco would be about 80% less. This
would impact the relative production cost and at constante
taxe rates the selling price.
So Middius is wrong. Nothing new.


From what, I've read there has been some major leaps in the increase of
THC content in pot due to careful breeding, but as long as you have
seeds, growing pot is very easy.
Hopefully, if it ever becomes legal, the average citizen with a
backyard or a balcony will not be prohibited from cultivating as much
or as little as they can. I treid some French grown pot once but it
wouldn't let me light it. :-)

wrote:

Is that what you got from his post? I think it was more a comment on
likemindedness of the court and the administration. We can let Schizo
clarify that for both of us.


Here's the quote: Unbelievable but the Supremes (the justices, not the
band), at the
urging of the Bush administration, now deem it fit to declare that
federal authority supercedes the states's when it comes to enforcing
drug laws.

Note the reference to urging from the Bush administration.

Mickey, in case you were not aware this case (Gonzales vs Raich) was
brought on by two California women who sued the government after their
homes were raided and pot plants destroyed by the DEA, which is a
federal agency that reports to your hero George W Bush.

Schizo said:

Yes, I admit it does come as a surprise to find Thomas and Rehnquist
both dissenting. Scalia's votes, however, have been entirely consistent
with the widely-held belief that he an a right-wing zealot.

IOW, he follows the law and doesn't make it up.
That's the reason the leftists hate him and GOP presidents.

If you haven't found a cure for your Hawaiian disease you should seek
help from one of their experts on the subject. IIRC it wouyld be in
his book Lackanuuky: Treatment and Cure. The author is that famous
author from the state of Hawaii, Kumoniwannalay'ya. :-)

Good luck

George Blueboy Middius said:

George Middius Jun 7, 4:49 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: George Middius - Find messages by
this author
Date: 7 Jun 2005 13:49:10 -0700
Local: Tues,Jun 7 2005 4:49 pm
Subject: Another victory for McKelvy-ists
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


Schizoid Man said:



I have not read Scalia's opinion, but given his track record I would be
inclined to think that his reasons for siding with the liberals stemmed
from some moral crusade.


Yes, he's a nasty little beetle of a man. In a couple of his opinions, he's said
that hatred based on race or other innate factors is OK as long as it's applied
equally.

I'd love to see that quote.