Lifestyle > Train of Thought

medicinal weed.. BS?...

<< < (2/2)

AndrE16686:
Over here the feds have to respect state laws in relation to most matters, including WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED because its generally the state's constitutional right under the Australian Constitution Act 1901 to regulate and create laws for the governing of the people.

I bet your US Constitution provides your states with the same liberties.....its just respect for it has gone to hell,

IRS never gave a flying fuck for the US Constitution,

CIA never gave a flying fuck for the US Constitution,

The White House dosn't give a flying fuck for the US Constitution.


http://www.youtube.com/v/oEGA7osKRkQ&rel=1&autoplay=0
Masta Killa & Bounty Killa, Eyes A Bleed (The RZA Remix).

Trauma-san:
Over here, federal law trumps state law.  We fought a big war about it, you might have heard of it, we called it the "CIVIL WAR".  When the south lost this "CIVIL WAR" the north said "FUCK YOU, YOU DO AS WE SAY" and that's how we reformed the U.S.A.  Now, if you ask the average dumbass on the street, they'll tell you the "CIVIL WAR" was about how the south wanted to keep having slaves.  You'll know better, though. 

AndrE16686:
^
Word. Thanks for that. Im starting US politics this year at uni. It's the same with our constitution though, powers not specified as federal fall to states (called residual powers), any inconsistencies and federal law prevails, but our states do have certain rights, like the regulation of roads, local taxes and development that the feds cannot fuck with. Of course we still  have legal conundrums aswell tho. Regulation of drugs and alcohol is within the feds jurisdiction (infact they can totally ban alcohol in a state if need be, they did last year in the Northern Territory), it is only because the federal parliament has not addressed marijuana that the states can have their own laws.

In the US the law seems to definately be on the fed's side (Controlled Substances Act 1970 US), federal law prevails.

However there are many studies and judges that recommend a decriminalisation of marijuana for personnal use, like what we got here in my state Victoria and in the capital of Australia, Canberra you are allowed to have 2 plants per household!!!!!! We don't have medicinal marijuana though. Medicinal seems kinda ridiculous, recreational maybe and decriminalised but not medicinal.


On September 6, 1988, the [US] Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled:
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known....[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance."

Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition,"
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm

Sikotic™:
The fact that the state and federal government are not on the same page is kinda retarded when it comes to their stance on mary jane.

jeromechickenbone:
State Government>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>federal government

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page