Judge says constitution protects right to grow tomato plants, why not cannabis?

[DNAprotection]

The excuse given for laws that are illegitimate is that they supposedly protect us from ourselves etc and of course that 'progress' = technology and that such technology = better healthier longer lives for us all and in order to achieve such we must have laws that keep us from doing for ourselves so that others can do better for us.
lol...

Li Ching-Yuen was a Chinese herbalist, martial artist and tactical advisor who lived to the ripe old age of 256 and sired 200 descendants during his life span, surviving 23 wives. Ching-Yuen lived off a diet of herbs and rice wine inculding lingzhi, goji berry, wild ginseng, he shou wu and gotu kola. In a 1930 New York Times article, Professor Wu Chung-chieh of the University of Chengdu discovered Imperial Chinese government records from 1827, congratulating one Li Ching-Yuen on his 150th birthday, and further documents later congratulating him on his 200th birthday in 1877 (Wikipedia, 2013). Li Ching-Yuen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tjvh]

If I had 200 plants for my own use I would never smoke anything but the hash I made from the 200 plants.

The problem is that there is always going to be that one guy, who decides he wants to make a few bucks from some of his pot plants. And that fact will never change.

 

[tjvh]

People have the Right to plant anything they want, if what they plant is illegal then there are Laws which will address that.

 

[DNAprotection]

If I had 200 plants for my own use I would never smoke anything but the hash I made from the 200 plants.

The problem is that there is always going to be that one guy, who decides he wants to make a few bucks from some of his pot plants. And that fact will never change.

Why is that a 'problem' ?
Moreover why should whatever one perceives that 'problem' to be end up unduly effecting or eliminating my rights to do for myself and my family with respect to growing plants to meet our basic needs such as food, clothes, medicine etc?

 

[DNAprotection]

People have the Right to plant anything they want, if what they plant is illegal then there are Laws which will address that.

I dont know that I understand your ultimate point here?
Are you saying your ok with gov deciding what plants we can grow or not grow?

 

[whitehall]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.
Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies.
However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

It ain't about growing the crap. A true pot-head can get some seeds and grow enough stupid weed to smoke it until his brains run out his ears. The dirty little secret is that pot-heads want to be able to make a killing setting up a pot stand in front of a middle school without worrying about the cops.

 

[DNAprotection]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.
Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies.
However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

It ain't about growing the crap. A true pot-head can get some seeds and grow enough stupid weed to smoke it until his brains run out his ears. The dirty little secret is that pot-heads want to be able to make a killing setting up a pot stand in front of a middle school without worrying about the cops.

Actually your entire statement here is misinformed about many of us who use cannabis and do not fit your generalizations about what you have named 'pot-heads'.
Also how in the world do you conclude that your statement is relative to the questions posed by this thread?
Have you read this thread at all?
Its all about growing plants...not 'crap' lol...at least mine arent

 

[editec]

Sadly, expecting the law to be either logical or consistent is an exercise in futility.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have definitely heard of the EPA cracking down on tomato growers who were selling or giving away tomatoes.

So its illegal for tomato growers to sell tomato's?

Where do the ones in the store come from?

 

[DNAprotection]

Sadly, expecting the law to be either logical or consistent is an exercise in futility.

I understand and agree, but thats why this thread is about exercising that possible 'futility' in court which almost no one has done directly with respect to the fundamental questions posed here and so its hard yet to determine if such cases if coordinated in a nation wide effort would be all together futile or not imo.

 

[DNAprotection]

I have definitely heard of the EPA cracking down on tomato growers who were selling or giving away tomatoes.

So its illegal for tomato growers to sell tomato's?

Where do the ones in the store come from?

No it's not "illegal for tomato growers to sell tomato's" just as long as they follow local, state and fed regs depending on where and how many tomato's they are selling, but this thread is meant to address growing your own tomato's or whatever plants for your own use outside of commerce. The existing case law leans in the direction of you not having that right because anything you do to feed or cloth yourself etc effects commerce.
The current case law though is based on flawed or incomplete foundations (by simply not posing the direct questions as are exampled by the poll question that has 11 votes so far) with regards to the case precedents as well as illegitimate authority assumed by congress which is in direct conflict with the 9th amendment imo.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.
Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies.
However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

Is that Judge following USMB?

A true bottom process would start with individuals being able to grow and barter their own dope.

Of course, eventually local rules and regulations would need to be developed concerning health and safety issues, that is once a commercial underground reached a certain point. I am speaking of growing and bartering dope, not a commercial thing where many of the dope pushers want it to be...that is all about greed and not about freedom and liberty.

Once a local issue is raised, inevitably a commercial licensing issue will come up (sad but true), and the states would get involved. The feds would of course enter once commercial transactions involved crossing state lines

So, keep dope decriminalized and what will be legalized on some level is the selling of the seeds or plantlets...not owning and growing a plant.

I worked in the garden center business for a few years...flowers and vegetables and trees and bushes...are decriminalized. One can grow them and do whatever one wants with them...within reason

See?

Now you know why its' called dope?

as far as smoking the shit? It's not called dope because it is totally harmless

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.

Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies. However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

First you need to provide a link to what you supposedly cut and pasted here.


Second, your profound ignorance on legals issues and what is and is not constitutional is appalling. You do dope?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Supreme Court used the commerce clause to justify this decision, claiming personal consumption magically affects interstate commerce and therefore all marijuana everywhere in the US falls under federal jurisdiction.

So how come growing tomatoes for your own consumption doesn't?

Well, if someone like the OP would provide a link to the ruling, we’d find out.

The case sited for this thread is another of my personal cases and as of yet I do not have the ruling on line so sorry no link, but the judge in this state case is wrong in terms of being consistent with fed rulings.

we don't need YOU to post anything but the case name/number and the Judge's name

 

[DNAprotection]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.

Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies. However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

First you need to provide a link to what you supposedly cut and pasted here.


Second, your profound ignorance on legals issues and what is and is not constitutional is appalling. You do dope?

Maybe my "profound ignorance" comes from spending so much time in court throughout my life?
Far more likely though is that your own "profound ignorance" likely comes from a total lack of experience arguing a constitutional case of any kind in court which probably also accounts for your arrogance

 

[DNAprotection]

Well, if someone like the OP would provide a link to the ruling, we’d find out.

The case sited for this thread is another of my personal cases and as of yet I do not have the ruling on line so sorry no link, but the judge in this state case is wrong in terms of being consistent with fed rulings.

we don't need YOU to post anything but the case name/number and the Judge's name

Actually i was thinking you need a lot more then that lol...something in balls and grey matter would probably be a good start

 

[Avatar4321]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.
Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies.
However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

Im not really familiar with the provision that states it's unconstitutional to forbid people from growing tomatos. It's an incredibly stupid policy. But just because something is stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. People need to understand this.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have definitely heard of the EPA cracking down on tomato growers who were selling or giving away tomatoes.

So its illegal for tomato growers to sell tomato's?

Where do the ones in the store come from?

There is Federal regulation that is outlawing private citizens from growing produce in their gardens and selling. It doesn't apply to farms.

Been a while since I've heard about it. It's as absurd as these cities who are banning people from providing food for the homeless.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The poll question got cut off, here is the entire question:
Do humans naturally hold the 'right' to plant seeds and grow plants in general for their own needs such as food, medicine, clothing etc?

This is an excerpt from a recent California judges ruling in a case challenging a local ordinance to restrict the number of outdoor plants a legally qualified patient can grow:

“Additionally, I want to address the analogy of growing tomatoes. Obviously an ordinance which declares growing more than X number of tomato plants outdoors in plain view to be a nuisance would be unconstitutional, That’s certain.
But I’ve never heard of a tomato gardener growing tomatoes for his or her own consumption being killed during a tomato robbery. Or of a tomato robber being killed in the act of stealing tomatoes.

Cultivation of marijuana is a crime, to begin with, just like cultivating cocoa plants or opium poppies. However, unlike those offenses, and unlike growing tomatoes, or like growing tomatoes, rather, the people of this state have decided that there needs to be an exemption to this criminal statute to protect legitimate medical marijuana users.”

How does the judge reach this constitutional conclusion about tomato growing?

Why wouldn't the same consideration apply to growing cannabis or any other plant?

First you need to provide a link to what you supposedly cut and pasted here.


Second, your profound ignorance on legals issues and what is and is not constitutional is appalling. You do dope?

Maybe my "profound ignorance" comes from spending so much time in court throughout my life?
Far more likely though is that your own "profound ignorance" likely comes from a total lack of experience arguing a constitutional case of any kind in court which probably also accounts for your arrogance

Losing cases and asking leading questions and fundamentally using unsound arguments. Your ignorant questions about what is and is not constitutional is even more appalling than I first thought if you are going to claim to be a lawyer or some kind of a legal aide.

You remind me of a handyman who has lots of experience on lots of jobs -- lots of jobs that he fucks up

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The case sited for this thread is another of my personal cases and as of yet I do not have the ruling on line so sorry no link, but the judge in this state case is wrong in terms of being consistent with fed rulings.

we don't need YOU to post anything but the case name/number and the Judge's name

Actually i was thinking you need a lot more then[sic] that lol...something in balls and grey matter would probably be a good start

You'd better not be the one who edits a final draft before submitting papers to teh court.