The first post in this thread is reason enough to ban the “demon weed”

On the whole, generally, I would prefer my fellow humans to take a few tokes and prance around than consume alcohol.

Also shun the hard-core freaky stuff such as meth (crank) heroine and the other really potent life-altering drugs.

But I view alcohol as causing more personal and societal harm than all other drugs combined.

Alcohol. BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I found an alcohol-free life and life-style to be eminently superior to a life with the noxious substance around me.

No alcohol in my shanty!!!! Ever.

Though I ceased the “devil weed” many moons ago due to finding a Zen-like existence atop the Ozark Plateau if some fine herb appeared and the setting was conducive to a buzzzzzz I might imbibe a toke or two but I could also easily say, “No thanky, Yankee.”

Still, I do appreciate the two-weeks R&R in Thailand at taxpayer’s expense back in the 70s.

The place still sticks in my mind for various reasons; including a short bout with Buddha’s best bud.

Kelly Appeals Court Decision. Chris Conrad testified at the original Long Beach trial and is cited. Ruling that was reviewed by the Supreme Court (Click here to view as a PDF (144k). Christopher Conrad testimony, mention 1. Christopher Conrad testimony, mention 2.

Phomphakdy Appeals Court Decision: Chris Conrad testified at the original Sacramento trial and is cited. Held that Quantities listed in SB 420, HS 11362.77(a) are unconstitutional to the extent that they are taken as limits affecting patients’ rights or legal defense. Chris Conrad’s testimony, mention 1 . Chris Conrad’s testimony, mention 2.

Archer Appeals Court Decision. Chris Conrad testified at the original San Diego trial. SB 420 quantity limits held unconstitutional by Appeals Court.

Also:
Windus Decision: Doctor’s approval is not an annual requirement and can be good for years; doctor’s dosage is advisory and does not restrict patient from having a “reasonable” amount, even if less than what a patient has.

San Diego v NORML: Federal law does not trump state law, California counties and agencies have to follow State law, not federal.

Kha Decision: Appellate Court: Local police must return medical marijuana to patients if found to be lawful under state law, regardless of federal law. Click here to view as a PDF (120k). “Mindful as we are of the general supremacy of federal law, we are unable to discern any justification for the City or its police department to disregard the trial court’s order to return Kha’s marijuana. The order is fully consistent with state law respecting the possession of medical marijuana, and for all the reasons discussed, we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha’s right to the return of his property. That right has its origins in the CUA and MMP, but it is grounded, at bottom, on fairness principles embodied in the due process clause. Those principles require the return of Kha’s property.”

And :
Butte County V Butte County Superior Court.
California Supreme Court has let stand a landmark appellate court ruling that protects the right of medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers to collectively cultivate. The ruling by California’s Third Appellate District Court also affirmed a patient’s ability to take civil action when their right to collectively cultivate is violated by law enforcement. The Butte County case involved a private 7-patient medical marijuana collective in Paradise, California.

The ruling was originally tied to a lawsuit filed in May 2006 by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after Butte County Sheriffs conducted a warrantless search of his home in 2005. Deputies forced Williams to uproot more than two-dozen plants by threatening arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, Williams was told by the Sheriff that his collectively cultivated medical marijuana was illegal.

After court Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel commented “By refusing to review this case, the California Supreme Court sends a strong message that local law enforcement must uphold the medical marijuana laws of the state and not competing federal laws.” Joe was the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. The appellate court ruling from July 2009 concluded that, “[T]he deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law.”

In its ruling, the appellate court asserted that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions: “[W]e see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual’s right to assert them.”

It would be really nice if the people we elect to work for us would learn how to read and comprehend the relevant laws, and not ignore them because they dislike them.