cannabisnews.com: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Use





Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Use
Posted by CN Staff on October 01, 2007 at 06:00:06 PT
By The Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press
Honolulu --  The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled against a Big Island man who claimed he had to smoke marijuana to practice his religion in what he called the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry.The court decided that Joseph Sunderland's freedom of religion didn't give him the right to smoke marijuana, but it didn't rule on whether Hawaii's strong privacy protections would have shielded him.
"The law prohibiting possession of marijuana ... applies to everyone," similar to traffic laws, said prosecuting attorney Janet Garcia. "Otherwise, you could have someone who says, 'My religious belief is that I shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign."'One justice, however, argued in a dissenting opinion that privacy rights guaranteed by the Hawaii Constitution should allow people to smoke marijuana in their homes.Justice Steven Levinson wrote in the court's split decision Sept. 21 that the framers of Hawaii's constitution intended to limit criminal punishment to cases where people are harmed."The issue is whether ... a fundamental right to privacy ... constrains the state from criminalizing mere possession of marijuana for personal use. My thesis is that it does," Levinson wrote in his dissent.The case started when a Big Island police officer spotted a six-inch pipe on Sunderland's kitchen table in 2003 while the officer was looking for a missing child.Sunderland told the officer the pipe was his, and he had a right to use it to exercise his religious beliefs. In fact, he said he had smoked marijuana from the pipe that morning.He showed the officer a card indicating his membership in a religious organization called the "Cannabis Ministry," and he told the officer he had been practicing his religion since he was 16 years old.Sunderland was charged with promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree for possession of the pipe and the marijuana residue inside."I believe that God put the holy herb onto this earth to help mankind to better understand him," Sunderland testified at trial.He was found guilty and ordered to pay $175 in fines and fees.His attorney, public defender Deborah Kim, said she will ask the Hawaii Supreme Court to reconsider the privacy issue."The court has ducked the question of whether the right to privacy prevents the police from enforcing marijuana laws when someone is using marijuana in their home for religious purposes," Kim said. "The question is still very much open."Source: Associated Press (Wire)Published: Monday, October 01, 2007Copyright: 2007 Associated Press CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #53 posted by FoM on October 11, 2007 at 12:06:44 PT
whig
Yes John Edwards could win. It doesn't take much to move someone that close up or down at this point. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by whig on October 11, 2007 at 11:56:21 PT
Btw
If it weren't for Ohio's vote being stolen in 2004, John Edwards is the lawful vice president right now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by whig on October 11, 2007 at 11:31:14 PT
FoM
I think John Edwards will be the Democratic nominee. I could be wrong, but I think he will be. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by FoM on October 11, 2007 at 06:56:57 PT
BGreen
Ron Paul stirs things up but he isn't standing 100% for what Republicans want so he won't get the nomination. Same thing with Dennis Kucinich. We will have to pick from Rudy or Mitt or Clinton or Obama so I stay close to following them so I know how they feel.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by BGreen on October 11, 2007 at 06:34:13 PT
The '50s
At least Ron Paul wants to return to the 1950's. The rest of the republican party seems to want to return to the years 476 AD to 1000 AD, forever known as the "Dark Ages."The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by FoM on October 11, 2007 at 06:25:58 PT
BGreen
I find this thinking that Ron Paul has is an extreme example of a religious fundamentalist and after Bush I don't want anymore of that mentality. Ron Paul is stuck in the 50s. That is one of the problem with older candidates. They want the 50s back and I sure don't. I would much rather the 60s mindset to return. We need to grow up.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by BGreen on October 11, 2007 at 06:17:47 PT
I agree with you, FoM
I'm just disgusted with the whole "sanctity of life" argument when it applies ONLY to the unborn fetus. Let's choose life and freedom for adults, too.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by FoM on October 11, 2007 at 06:09:35 PT
BGreen
All I ask is that men don't think they know more then a woman about her life and body and to let her and her doctor and her God if she believes in one to decide not a politician. A doctor should know that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by BGreen on October 11, 2007 at 06:00:03 PT
I'd accept an anti-abortion president if ...
and only if, he/she weren't shipping them off to die for no good reason in the military when they got older.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by FoM on October 11, 2007 at 05:22:37 PT
gloovins
He tried to introduce a Bill that would have ended Roe Vs. Wade and that is not a state's right issue. He says one thing but wants it overturned. That says he won't feel bad about women being made criminals again and they could go to jail then.Thanks Afterburner I agree.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by gloovins on October 11, 2007 at 00:28:01 PT
off-topic
abortion...sorry...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by afterburner on October 10, 2007 at 23:37:06 PT
OT: on Abortion
I for one see nothing moral in wanting to return to the days of back-alley butchers with coat-hangers and unsterilized equipment and dodgy surgical skills. Shame on the Republicans for wanting to cast this potential harm on women. Abortion should not be relied on as a primary source of birth control, but neither should abortion be totally *Prohibited*.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by gloovins on October 10, 2007 at 23:21:19 PT
Yes - excellent info Roger
Again, with this article, money is all it boils down to. That and precedent that this conviction sets & is upheld."Public" defender now mean "pretender" more so. Here is a guy who is in this legit church since 16 yrs old & he doesn't have the Legal Assistance Kit?! Wtf? It's like having to walk around with your bible or koran to prove your religon for god's sake...If this is upheld that whole kit may become moot. Possibly... Roger, unfortunately, most do not carry this "Kit" on them, sorry bout that. Your point on sincerity is well spot on but that vast amount of ignorance thriving in society today is insane. On the surface it is strange -- the religious defence - but when articulated properly, it's legitmate, wholly. Cops do have vast discretion on scene and they do hate paperwork, this is true. But the legal precedent again, is what this DA 's office is loving because they can now challenge this defence so, it's looking not too good however I think he's got a good chance on the reconsideration now that the "public defender" is educated legally. See how money boils it all down and can be found at the root of this quandry? FoM, as far as abortion and Ron Paul, well as far as I understand, he is personally against it -- like you -- but wants to leave it up to the state to ban it or not. He looks at it as a state's right issue. I agree with him on this. I seriously do not think New York or California would outlaw abortion.Don't ask me about Ohio, however...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by ekim on October 10, 2007 at 19:31:54 PT
good going Roger
thank you for all you are doingi feel the manamike
http://blog.leap.cc/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by whig on October 09, 2007 at 21:41:42 PT
Roger
Some day it would be nice to see Hawaii. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by whig on October 09, 2007 at 21:37:20 PT
Roger Christie
I really appreciated that too. Thank you for explaining.Aloha
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Max Flowers on October 09, 2007 at 09:04:23 PT
Good info
Thank you Roger. That's the kind of info I was looking for. I'm sorry to have been so firm in getting you to post it, but I felt we weren't seeing enough nitty-gritty and a little too much sales pitch. My view is improved now, and I am impressed. Please post more if there is more... this is good stuff. If you don't mind my saying so, it's that kind of specific information that should have comprised your message all along.cheers,
MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Roger Christie on October 09, 2007 at 07:45:53 PT:
THC Ministry update
Further, if you have a card, but cannot articulate your religious belief, you are going to be considered bogus, and rightfully so.True enough. Sincerity is the key to the religious use door. Could you please outline for us what has happened in those few cases where the card did NOT work, and why it did not work. Only knowing those facts, in addition to facts about the successes, will give someone who is considering your program the full picture needed to make an intelligent decision.The cards have either worked to avoid arrest, or they worked to avoid conviction, or I don't know about the case. I don't know of any of our members who are in jail convicted, who had our protection in advance of trouble with the law. Zero.   Hello there,Aloha. Thanks for your inquiry. It's relevant and necessary, especially with this decision in place.We have approximately 72 incidents of success with our THC Ministry method, id cards and documents. Success means that an arrest was avoided, or charges were dropped by a Prosecutor to avoid an acquittal in court and to evade a legal precedent.I almost hate to offer any kind of 'formula' id card, but since they work so often I'm inclined to continue. It's a bit like Schindler's List was to the Nazis. If you're on it you've got a chance, if not - good luck to you. Our id cards mention my unique State of Hawai'i license number from the Department of Health specifically as a "Cannabis sacrament" Minister. That alone can provide 'reasonable doubt' in a juror's mind. Prosecutors know this. My license has held-up as legitimate in Federal Court, too. I was there! We have other successes, also, like making and providing "holy anointing oil" from the Bible recipe that has helped to heal a radical case of gangrene and kept limbs from being amputated.We track our "testimonials" on our websites; thc-ministry.org hosted in Hawai'i and thc-ministry.net hosted in Amsterdam. It's very gratifying to hear of success under arrest conditions.  We also assist in legal defense to greatly reduce legal bills and to effectively help get a person free. It's mostly about buildiing 'mana', or inner spiritual strength. We rarely use lawyers, actually. One member reports that he won against the U.S. Army without even a lawyer involved. His THC Ministry id and his testimonial was all that was needed to receive an Honorable Discharge and full G.I. Bill instead of a Courts Marshall.Arresting officers have the discretion NOT to arrest. If they feel a difficult religious case coming against a sincere person they often let them go, sometimes with their herb and pipe! Really. It's human nature. They hate 'paperwork' like most people, and they don't want to come against "religion" if they don't have to. It's pretty easy to arrest most Cannabis people because they have zero built-in defense like we do. See we've done legal work IN ADVANCE. It's like a template that applies to virtually all sincere Cannabis enjoyers in the U.S.A. Fill-in the blanks. Zero follow-up harassment has ever occurred to anyone. All States guarantee religious freedom in writing as do the Feds. I'm living proof that this method works. You should see our THC Ministry here in Hilo, Hawai'i. It's a beautiful thing! For instance: http://www.thenaughtyamerican.com/2007/News/08/27/Cannabis-Minister-Preaches-The-Good-Weed-175.htmlWe win cases with our blessing and our 'mana'. I've noticed that the more I exercise my mana the less I see of my victim. Both can't exist in me at the same time apparently. My free will choices (conscious or un-conscious) drive me either way in every moment. Empowerment or victim? I get to choose. It's pure metaphysics, or the "responsibility game" where I'm totally responsible for my life and my results. It's the best game I know of to play here on Earth. I'm the God-being in my body. There is no 'they' out there. It's all about our inner spiritual strength. The weak points of our Ministry method were brought-up by the U.S. Justice Department when I sued John Ashcroft and Karen Tandy in 2004. Their Motion to Dismiss was priceless for us. They told the Court every shortcoming we had at the time. We have their whole 'game plan'! Since then we've patched-up all the holes in our system that I can think of and we sail along every day now for over seven years. The local cops and D.E.A treat me with total respect. (I had 5 of them in the Ministry last week and it's all good. I didn't know I could love this town any more until then.) Check us out at our website, www.thc-ministry.org and/or call me at the THC Ministry in Hilo, Hawai'i at (808) 217-9352. I'll give you 'da scoop anytime I'm free.* By the way, the Public Defender in the Sunderland case filed a Motion to Reconsider last week. It's not over until we win or we quit.  ** This is the only conviction that I'm aware of in over seven years with thousands of id cards 'out there'. This member didn't even have our Cannabis Sanctuary Kit which would have really helped him. I can't make people order them and I think they're much more vulnerable without one. This case actually proves that point even better by his conviction. No wonder his lawyer was unprepared! If the young man had our kit he would have had 90% of the necessary legal work done and ready to go! We include four actual Motions to Dismiss in our kits so a defendant doesn't need to pay lawyer time to get them. Lawyers are free of most of the research time usually needed to prepare a case. It's a formula. We're all entitled to religious freedom, it's a great inheritance, but we need to exercise it and be able to sincerely testify to that point. That's the threshold, sincerity. Good manners and respect also help. 'Blessing' the challenge is THE key to victory! Here it is:"God, that's GREAT! Please show me the blessings in this situation ... and hurry! We are safe. We are loved, and all is well."  I believe this blessing is a spiritual law like the law of gravity, or the law of attraction. It works! Please try it and see for yourself. :-} All the very best to you,Roger Christie, FounderTHC Ministry   
The Hawai'i Cannabis (THC) Ministry
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Max Flowers on October 06, 2007 at 11:34:28 PT
whig
I even wrote him an email to alert him to my question in this thread, in case he simply did not come back to check the thread... I see there has been so far no response. This does not exactly inspire confidence does it? I really want to see him and his program as being good and valid, but if he won't provide some real information, then I will have no choice but to see him as just another guy trying to cash in on people's desire to have protection from unjust laws.Roger, if you're reading this, you're running out of time to convince me and probably all of the CNews readers of the veracity and integrity of your card program.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by whig on October 04, 2007 at 16:23:08 PT
Max Flowers
I would also like to hear what statistics Roger has, and I would add that being a religious user of cannabis does not require a membership card. Further, if you have a card, but cannot articulate your religious belief, you are going to be considered bogus, and rightfully so.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by Max Flowers on October 04, 2007 at 15:13:22 PT
Roger
I believe I asked you this in the past (without getting an answer), but I would like to try again:While I find your reports of successes of the THC Ministry ID card interesting without a doubt, I will find the "failures" even more so. Could you please outline for us what has happened in those few cases where the card did NOT work, and why it did not work. Only knowing those facts, in addition to facts about the successes, will give someone who is considering your program the full picture needed to make an intelligent decision.For example you say in your post "Our track record is still quite good even in the face of the extreme prohibition". That's nice to hear, but the shrewd person needs to know *how* it failed in those cases where it did, in order to calculate whether or not to risk his/her freedom on your THC Ministry ID card, which is really what you are asking people to do---and moreover (if I recall), you are asking for money to do it. Which is fine---IF you disclose the really relevant facts, and I have never heard you say anything about any weak points.If you don't respond to my question this time, I'm afraid I can't ever believe that it's a legitimate defense. I notice that you have also never detailed even the facts of cases where there were "successes under arrest conditions"... what happened in those? Did cops radio to their commander or supervisor that the potential arrestee had the card and this was enough to stop the whole thing in its tracks? Was there later follow-up harassment of the person? On what basis was the arrest defeated (from the DA/police point of view, in their words)? You need to give people facts, you can't just say "trust me, it works!" That's not good enough with stakes this high.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by Roger Christie on October 03, 2007 at 00:25:58 PT:
More steps to come in this case
Hello Canna-friends,Aloha. Our THC Ministry finally made the headlines here yesterday ... with this Hawaii Supreme Court opinion; our first conviction in seven years with thousands of members. The story went AP and Fox News, too. It could have been better, but we're looking for the blessings in it and we'll surely find them because, just like with the 'law of attraction', there's a spiritual principle involved that works like the 'law of gravity'.The defendant's Public Defender apparently blew-it so badly in this case that the Supreme's even mentioned her error at the beginning of their Opinion. She left out the crucial matter of PRIVACY, a Constitutional guarantee in the Hawai'i State Constitution that, combined with religious freedom, should have equaled overturning the conviction and setting the young man free. Last week we received our 70th, 71st and 72nd testimonial of success with our THC Ministry id cards 'under arrest conditions'. Our track record is still quite good even in the face of the extreme prohibition, and the inner force ('victimization') that's oftentimes opposed to our own liberty. We offer a Constitutional defense to prosecution available to virtually ALL of those arrested every year for simple possession of marijuana in the U.S.A.   All the very best to you!Roger Christie, FounderTHC Ministry    
The Hawai'i Cannabis (THC) Ministry
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 19:11:40 PT
mayan
How does it end or reduce disparity, either?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by whig on October 02, 2007 at 19:09:14 PT
mayan
"Ron Paul believes we have the right to keep the fruits of our labor to support ourselves, our families and whatever charities we so choose, without interference from the federal government."How does this eliminate greed?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on October 02, 2007 at 18:24:58 PT
Max Flowers
Thank you for defending a woman's right to choose. I never have understood why men think they know more about a woman then a woman knows about herself. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by mayan on October 02, 2007 at 17:54:57 PT
"Nightmare"
Oops.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by mayan on October 02, 2007 at 17:51:20 PT
Greed's Worst Nisghtmare
Ron Paul believes we have the right to keep the fruits of our labor to support ourselves, our families and whatever charities we so choose, without interference from the federal government. Whig, isn't it obvious that the ultra-greedy are absolutely terrified of Ron Paul? Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Max Flowers on October 02, 2007 at 17:35:03 PT
Sorry, one more
I gotta get it out of my system...On this issue I would have to offer a compromise being first trimester only. After this time, the child is much more likely to survive with a C-section.Oh, aren't you generous to offer that? Who are you, God? Get over yourself man, you have NOTHING to say about it. You are trying to "negotiate" when you have no cards in your hand. Incredible!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Max Flowers on October 02, 2007 at 17:31:01 PT
Mike
It's interesting to me how I agree with some of your post and not with other parts.I agree withe the stuff further down, but all the stuff about abortion just sounds pathetic and meddling coming from a man (I am a man too BTW). You (nor I, nor any man) can't begin to put yourself in the situation a woman is in when this is a relevant question, and so, neither you nor any man can/should be in a position to make or influence policy on the issue. You *cannot* honestly tell me that if the roles were reversed, and men of our species were the ones to get pregnant, that we would allow women to have anything major to do with the decision of whether we could have abortions or not. Get real---we simply would not allow it in a million years, and in the same way, we men have NO right to tell women what they can and can't do in this regard. Before today I've never said anything before to "right-to-life-dudes", but I've always wanted to because it always sounds so stupid to me when they try to pontificate about it. Imagine women trying to legislate where men could or could not legally put their penises (by mutual consent, I don't include rape obviously)---it sounds ridiculous, but it is basically the same thing. It's like some backwards Shar'ia law where men can legally beat up a woman for touching a man who isn't her husband or something. You should stay out of their business and their bodies, as you and every guy in the world who takes similar positions have no business there. Yes it's tragic when a baby doesn't get to make it, but it doesn't trump concerns for the mother. If you're so very concerned with babies dying, why don't you make your life's work out of saving them from disease and famine?? Too busy? Um, yeah, I thought so...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Max Flowers on October 02, 2007 at 17:08:08 PT
Weird logic
"The law prohibiting possession of marijuana ... applies to everyone," similar to traffic laws, said prosecuting attorney Janet Garcia. "Otherwise, you could have someone who says, 'My religious belief is that I shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign."'By this same flawed logic, it seems to me, she feels that if they have the right to tell you that you have to stop at a stop sign, then they have the right to tell you what religion you can and can't believe in. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 19:01:36 PT
mayan
So how does Ron Paul eliminate greed?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by mayan on October 01, 2007 at 18:08:42 PT
whig
Greed, which breeds disparity.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 14:11:21 PT
Sinus buster
Some time ago I commented here about a product I used for sinus congestion called Sinus Buster. It actually does work, and it is homeopathic in mechanism. So anyone who says homeopathy is bogus is not correct.It wasn't a cure, but it sure does help clear out sinus congestion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 14:07:08 PT
Homeopathic principle
The idea in a chronic condition is that you have certain symptoms that are ineradicable by countering them with some suppressing remedy. Those symptoms are your body responding to some damage or toxin that it wants to heal or remove or, barring that, compensate for in some way. If you can identify the correct set of symptoms and match them to a toxin that you can identify, that toxin taken in very minute doses may cause a body response to eject the toxin and with it whatever was previously also causing distress.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 13:18:39 PT
Mike
Abortion is not a matter for men to decide for women.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 13:08:17 PT
Re: Appeal
Make sure you invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the O Centro case.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 13:00:52 PT
mayan
What do you believe is the root cause of poverty?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 12:51:55 PT
Natural pain relief
Mushrooms.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 12:50:45 PT
Chronic allopathy
I shouldn't say it is never appropriate to use allopathic approaches to chronic pain. It may be. If you have pain like I did before, but it cannot be healed... I have another idea, though, which would be heteropathy in this case.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 12:44:20 PT
Cannabis, homeopathy and allopathy
I believe cannabis is a homeostatic remedy. Not homeopathic, as it does not cause a pathology, nor allopathic, which tries to reverse a pathology, but a bioregulatory aid to your body.Cannabis cannot cure disease, truly, but your body can.Still, you cannot use cannabis alone, and expect to have everything you need.Where a cure cannot be given, a treatment may be temporarily given, and allopathy is good at this. If you have congestion, you can take a decongestant. If you have trouble sleeping, you can take a sleep aid. If you have a headache, you can take a pain reliever.As I've said, cannabis does not remove my pain. It increases my awareness of pain, and my control over it and ability to manage it improves, but it is not less, it is even at times increased.So a further remedy is needed, and enzyme is given to me allopathically, which I need to detoxify my body. This is a "cure" insofar as it ideally reverses my condition perfectly, though only temporarily for each dose.This, too, does not remove my pain from the damage that the toxins have done, and even as I may be healing that damage it is not a process that can be without some discomfort.Allopathic treatments for pain and discomfort are not appropriate for chronic conditions. They work by repressing the symptom, or countering it in some way, which can only work for a limited time, and then begin to do more harm than good.When I had surgery on my hip, that was allopathic, and it saved my life. The pain killers they prescribed for me were allopathic, and they were necessary as well if I would be capable of bearing the pain of that kind of operation.There's a price to be paid for all pain suppression, of course, which is masked pain. You can store pain up in your body, as stress causes all kinds of physical problems. These need to be relieved when the acute crisis is ended.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 12:31:16 PT
FoM
I am trying homeopathy now. Mezereum 30C for my sinus problem and itch. I'll let you know how it goes. I'm not sure that allopathy could help with this kind of problem and I'm learning the theory behind how this alternative works along with testing it on myself.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 12:29:12 PT
Richard Zuckerman
Please don't use ALL CAPS when writing it is hard to read and comes across as SHOUTING. Also, I know you were convicted of threatening a Judge and I'm glad you have apologized for that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by whig on October 01, 2007 at 12:26:38 PT
Appeal
You may not win in trial court, but first amendment issues have been raised here. This case can go as far as you want to take it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by aolbites on October 01, 2007 at 12:12:37 PT
............a detrimental drug ???????????
"Sunderland was charged with promoting a detrimental drug "So, the burden of proof is on the Government, They should have to prove at his trial that cannabis is 'detrimental' ... just slap a copy of the cannabis research Library on the judges desk.MAKE THEM ENTER IT INTO THE RECORD.HOW CAN THEY REFUTE THOUSANDS OF STUDIES?Lets see them say that theres no such thing as endocannabanoids [The Natural Law Requires you to be in possesion, or you will die.]
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 01, 2007 at 11:41:38 PT
Mike
I can't even get insurance because of pre existing illnesses so anything is better then nothing. As far as abortion goes I am against abortion personally but I am pro choice because it should be between a woman, her doctor and her God if she believes in one. Being Pro Life means that women could be criminalized for making a very difficult decision and that is wrong. I consider myself a realist too. I was very idealistic but now with age and time I see it like it is and don't expect more then a little when it comes to politics. Here's an article about Obama's view on the drug war.Obama Adds Reducing Mandatory Drug Sentences To Presidential PlatformSeptember 28, 2007Jessica Pupovac - AHN WriterWashington, D.C. (AHN) - Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) outlined his civil rights platform Friday, saying that if elected president, he would target racial disparities in the U.S. justice system through a host of measures, including relaxing drug sentencing laws. The presidential hopeful said he would review mandatory minimums and push to give first-time, nonviolent drug offenders a chance to serve their sentence in drug rehabilitation programs, rather than prison. "We have a system that locks away too many young, first-time, non-violent offenders for the better part of their lives - a decision that's made not by a judge in a courtroom, but all to often by politicians in Washington and state capitals around the country," Obama said. Complete Article: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008667878
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Mike on October 01, 2007 at 11:26:15 PT
FoM
Here's a piece by John Stossel:http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stossel%3A+Canada's+health-care+system+is+to+die+for&articleId=c3108c8d-43c4-436b-9af1-b9acf4875aef
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Mike on October 01, 2007 at 11:07:24 PT
FoM
It still remains that the issue of abortion does not trump the issue of this Drug War. Rest assured, regardless of who is elected this time around, women will remain "free to choose" to kill their children. Its the battle against this Drug War where the support is needed right now. And, yes, murder is a crime against another. It amazes me that some children can be saved from the womb weighing ounces and some people (especially Democrats) are in favor of allowing women to terminate full-term babies, making sure to kill them inside the body so its not murder, even though they would easily survive outside the womb at this point. On this issue I would have to offer a compromise being first trimester only. After this time, the child is much more likely to survive with a C-section."Universal Health Care" is not what its cut out to be. Its been a disaster in Canada, for example, where there's year-long waiting lists for check-ups. (This has also spawned "for profit" clinics to pop up there which are doing quite well.) Also remember, it has to be paid for by someone, and with the "government" paying for everything, we'll be fast into costs like $10,000 band-aids. No matter, private insurance companies make too much money to allow that revenue to disappear without a fight. You watch.  Campaigning for Universal Health Care is simply a tactic to gain votes. Hillary disgusts me as much as Bush. (IF such a system actually worked I would be all for it, as I haven't had any insurance since I was in my teens. And I don't think I've had a check-up since I was 7. So believe me, I understand your point here. But there is yet to be one good example anywhere in the world where this Socialistic Health Care actually worked in the Utopian way they try to make it sound.)  I guess my overall stance is that we need LESS federal government controlling aspects of our lives. The more they have their hands in things, the more messed up everything gets. For the record, I would support Obama as a distant second after Paul. But Hillary? Don't get me started on that phoney. She's as bad as Giuliani. Watch it wind up being between those two. Either way it will be more of the same crap. Just watch.I've become acutely cynical in my 40's.. albeit a realist. lol
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 01, 2007 at 10:28:25 PT
mayan
I am not a Republican. I guess I could skip voting but that would help put a Republican in office. I fear them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mayan on October 01, 2007 at 10:17:11 PT
FoM
So are you going to support the people who perpetuate the system which leaves you with no health insurance? I refuse to believe the hollow promises of the establishment puppets. Ron Paul wants to eliminate the root causes of poverty and make health care affordable to all. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 01, 2007 at 10:08:50 PT
Mike
I am one of the 40 plus million that doesn't have any insurance and Ron Paul is not for Universal Health Care and I really do need to be able to go to a Doctor. I haven't been to a Doctor since 94. Making criminals out of women is not a liberal stance unless women don't count. I think we count. I hope we count.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Mike on October 01, 2007 at 09:09:24 PT
::shudder::
What's scary is that Freedom of Religion now only applies to government-sanctioned beliefs. Yikes!To add my political view since I've seen a lot of opinions flying around here lately. Ron Paul is the only candidate out there who seems to have some sense. (And, no, a woman's right to kill her baby does NOT trump this insane "Drug War" and its War on Liberty. Both issues should belong to the states, anyway.) All the other politicians, be them Republicans or Democrats, are cut from the same vile filthy cloth. People want Democrats next time around? Fine. Anything is better than the crap we have now. But don't be surprised when there are NO changes to drug policy. Hopefully then people will begin to get away from just voting along party lines. Both political parties are full of self-serving bureaucrats. They make me sick. Our true only hope lies within the individual candidates that aren't afraid to take a stand for what's right. (Which, ironically is the reason Ron Paul will likely not become elected.) Hopefully within my lifetime people won't be afraid to elect someone like him, because that's the only way we'll ever effect a revolutionary change. As for now, however, fear and dogma will continue to reign as the greatest inhibitors to discovery and growth.There. I've said my piece. =)~And in other news: http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/63988/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Richard Zuckerman on October 01, 2007 at 08:34:44 PT:
RESPECT YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION OR IT'LL DISAPPEAR
JUSTICE LEVINSON HAD WRITTEN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN STATE V. MALLAN, 950 P.2d 178, 208-209, 218-219 (HAWAII 1998) OPINING THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS USE, POSSESSION, AND CULTIVATION OF CANNABIS/"MARIJUANA". I PHOTOCOPIED THOSE PAGES AND MAILED IT TO SEVERAL STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATORS, AMONG OTHER PEOPLE, ASKING TO LEGALIZE THE HERB; BUT I AM ONLY ONE LITTLE GUY! I AM CONVICTED OF MAILING A THREAT TO A FEDERAL JUDGE OVER THE "MARIJUANA" LAWS! LEGISLATORS ALREADY KNOW MY POSITION. I ALSO VOTE FOR MY OPINION, TOO, FOR RALPH NADER, LIBERTARIAN PARTY CANDIDATES, AND, UPCOMING, RON PAUL.WHAT ABOUT YOU PEOPLE? DO YOU VOTE FOR THE POLITICANS WHO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by mayan on October 01, 2007 at 07:11:24 PT
Weak Argument
"The law prohibiting possession of marijuana ... applies to everyone," similar to traffic laws, said prosecuting attorney Janet Garcia. "Otherwise, you could have someone who says, 'My religious belief is that I shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign."BULLSH*T! Sunderland's cannabis use jeopardizes nobody else's person or property. Not stopping at a stop sign does. Janet Garcia obviously lacks common sense and basic human decency. Ignorance sucks.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment