- I thought you should see this story.take a serious look at how off CA health and legislation is behind in offering sliding scale for poor patients.thx to greedy lobbying [2 Updates]
- Pack v. Superior Court – Authority to REGULATE is necessarily different than to PROHIBIT [1 Update]
- ‘Medical’ Marijuana: 10 Health Benefits That Legitimize Legalization – International Business Times [1 Update]
- "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..[email protected]> Aug 09 07:04PM -0700
Yes indeed donna, we the patients do need to re invent the patient movement
and clearly define our agreed upon goals. And demand that industry lobby
register every operative and show them what the legal realms of lobby are,I
guess by forces becuase I'm sure you will agree that they haven't been
- Steve Kubby <s..[email protected]> Aug 09 02:20AM -0700
I am sending you this brilliant legal brief by attorney Mathew Pappas. It argues that Congress lacked the authority under Art. 1, Sec. 8, CL. 3 of the US Constitution to PROHIBIT all marijuana activities through the federal CSA, because the authority to REGULATE is necessarily different than to COMPEL or PROHIBIT. The Supreme Court has just ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) that the Commerce Clause is limited to REGULATE commerce. In RAICH the court did not address the meaning of REGULATE and instead applied a broader definition, which has since been limited by the Supreme Court in NFIB.
This brief also discusses the fact that federal law does not forbid the use of medical marijuana, since Congress has approved medical marijuana for DC. The argument is presented that voters in California are forbidden the same rights as the DC voters who approved medical cannabis for their jurisdiction.
Let freedom grow,
- "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..[email protected]> Aug 09 01:01AM -0700