Comments on: UPDATE: Jurors Tossed at Kitsap Marijuana Trial

By: Mary Singleton

Mary Singleton — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:31:29 +0000

Sharon Ohara – The answer to every question: follow the dollar. Get the insurance companies out of the picture and you’ll have your established universal medical standards. Even Feds have lost interest in pot busts [unless you transport across state lines or grow with obvious commercial intent on federal land - duh]. Our schools have their own in-house Ritalin dispensaries and pharmaceutical companies are pushing drugs down our throats, even on TV, many of which are later recalled after [wups] failing to perform as promised [ie - killing us]. Marijuana is an age-old, naturally occurring, medicinal product providing proven relief to 10s of 1,000s without a cost-driving pharmaceutical patent, and has never killed a soul. Washington – grow up. Your people have spoken ~ 10 years ago [hello?]. Stop violating rights and your own law on the taxpayer’s dime. Invest in schools and health care systems to [re]gain ROI and some sense of decency.

By: Washington State Marijuana Trial on National Stage

Washington State Marijuana Trial on National Stage — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:51:22 +0000

[...] horsesass.org, NORML.org, Port Orchard Independent, Kitsap Sun Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:42:58 +0000

Some people have very strong and impatient feelings about freedom.

Our popular culture believes that we fight wars overseas for freedom. Some may not want to wait around for people in Washington DC to give us permission to apply individual responsibility in our daily lives. We have senators and congress-people who represent us in DC- they need to know what we expect and act on it-not let the federal government lead us around.

Many issues are caught up between what citizens of any state may want vs. federal policy-

Marijuana laws, marrying our gay lover (in recent years a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage has been proposed), concealed carry of handguns (may or may not be legal on National Parks lands), going to the bar and ordering beers with a 20 year old girlfriend, Federal Suspicionless Checkpoints and roadblocks as much as 100 miles from Canada and inland from the Pacific, etc.

By: Sharon O'Hara

Sharon O'Hara — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:00:02 +0000

“does not conflict with federal law even when federal law criminalizes or penalizes the very same conduct….”

Phil M: If ‘penalizes’ means federal law can sentence a person breaking federal law… how does that work when the person resides in a state that allows the activity…such as the marijuana for medical purposes allowed in Washington?

If the patient is getting benefit from it, what can happen if the patient leaves the state and continues the practice in another state?

“The states, not the federal government, regulate medical practice and establish standards of medical care.”

Shouldn’t medical care have established universal standards throughout the US?
Why would medical practice and standards of medical care be any different for Oregon citizens than it is here for us in Washington?

The War Between The States might not have come about had the states been in agreement…
Sharon O’Hara

By: Phil M

Phil M — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:15:19 +0000

Sharon, I’ve heard reasonable arguments that this sort thing is not a power granted by the Constitution to the federal government. The federal government may be exceeding its legal authority.

See “The Role of State Law Enforcement,” from Americans for Safe Access: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=183

In that document, ASA expresses and backs the following claims:

* States, not the federal government, are the principal purveyors of criminal codes. Congress’ authority to enact criminal laws is greatly circumscribed by the Constitution.

* Only when federal and state laws directly conflict is federal law supreme. When there is no direct conflict, states retain the authority to legislate as they see fit.

* States retain full authority to de-criminalize or de-penalize conduct as they see fit. The refusal of a state to criminalize or penalize conduct is fully consistent with principles of Federalism and does not conflict with federal law even when federal law criminalizes or penalizes the very same conduct.

* It is the duty of sheriffs, as well as the district attorney to enforce state laws.

* The federal government may not compel state law enforcement agents to enforce federal regulations.

* The states, not the federal government, regulate medical practice and establish standards of medical care.

By: Sharon O'Hara

Sharon O'Hara — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:11:49 +0000

Get your facts straight and reread what I said, uncommonsense.
Put down your pipe – after a few hours without puffing you might be able to reason and be civil at the same time.

Thank you Phil M and SimonJester.
I don’t pretend to know the answer to the drug problem but it should be changed at the federal level, not the state working in direct opposition to a federal law.
Sharon O’Hara

By: SimonJester

SimonJester — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:54:46 +0000

Why am I not surprised the Kidnap Co. Persecuters office is afraid of public speach and is trying to cherry-pick a jury of sheeple that will toe the line and not consider fairness (or RCW 69.51a)?

BTW, Sharon: The constitution of the late, great, US of A reserved rights not specificly granted to the federales to the states and the people (and never granted any federal right to prohibit any substance – aside from the *REPEALED* amendment prohibiting alcohol)

Who benefits from prohibition? Gangsters, the Cocaine Importing Agency (CIA), the Drug price Enhancement Agency (DEA), the Medallin cartel, and other criminals but *not* the citizens…

Simon says: Keep Marijuana Illegal – and tax-free
Simon says: Grow some dope, plant a politition

By: uncommonsense

uncommonsense — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:58:47 +0000

wow!! I would have never voted for it if I really thought it was illegal!??? Hint for Sharon: when you were voting for it, that would be plain english for being obviously illegal. Or a first grader might say, ” it’s illegal so I really wanted to vote it more illegal ?” If I were you I wouldn’t be smoking anything more either lady, sounds like your benzene and paint chip habit was plenty?

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:04 +0000

I am not saying activism is a dirty word. I am saying the letters get written- as they should be-but people can go on that way for years and become impatient about the urban legend called freedom.

By: Phil M

Phil M — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:32:08 +0000

Alex @9: Sending letters to elected representatives is a form of activism. Don’t be fooled by those who would prefer that the public look the other way and let themselves be ruled by corporate lobbyists — activism is not a dirty word.

ac⋅tiv⋅ism
/ˈæktəˌvɪzəm/ [ak-tuh-viz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.

activism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/activism (accessed: March 12, 2009).