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

[DNAprotection]

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

Not a lawyer or a legal aid, just a human who has many times stood up in defense of being human. I know such notions sound foreign to a being of such self perceived superiority, but if your so superior then show me your cases?

 

[DNAprotection]

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.

Maybe you would be better for the job?
You seem to think you are so why aren't you?
I only have an 8th grade edu lol so no doubt you are quite correct, but if geniuses like you don't do the work that needs to be done then someone has to try at least...right?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

so basically your is what is commonly known as a nut case?

cool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

possession of cannabis is illegal

possession of tomatoes are not

we the people, through our government, could outlaw possession of tomatoes if we so wanted

 

[DNAprotection]

in a backwards brave new world i suppose your view would be the status quot...but it just may be a lunatic your looking for considering what a great job all you 'sane' folks running things have done...

 

[Avatar4321]

so basically your is what is commonly known as a nut case?

cool

Dante, relax, it's not like you're any different.

sanity is over rated. Admit the truth and go crazy

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

Try it with lemonade stands. You have this nice lemon tree and decide to sell lemonade at a lemonade stand in your own front yard. What result? We all know. It's done all the time.

Start growing some beautiful foxglove plants, or belladonna. No limit on those. But you harvest the leaves process them and sell them. Now what happens? Clue, it's the death penalty.

Maybe you missed the question...this question goes to your own use outside of commerce.

You might wish to review a case entitled Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 ( 1942). Case involved the ability of the feds to employ the commerce clause to prevent persons from growing wheat on their own property to be used exclusively on their own property. To make a long story short, SCOTUS said the Feds could do that.

 

[legaleagle_45]

possession of cannabis is illegal

possession of tomatoes are not

we the people, through our government, could outlaw possession of tomatoes if we so wanted

The government would have to dream up a better reason than merely "we want to ban them". However, they could possibly dream up some rational reason for doing so.

 

[DNAprotection]

so basically your is what is commonly known as a nut case?

cool

Dante, relax, it's not like you're any different.

sanity is over rated. Admit the truth and go crazy

In the poll here there are 11 (unanimous so far) folks who have gone clear out of their minds voting that humans have this unalienable right, yet the prevailing view of the current law is that of those who would call these 11 votes 'crazy', so I pose this as 'virtual' proof that to survive we need to get a lil 'crazy'...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhVe_IsTVJY]Seal - Crazy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

in a backwards brave new world i suppose your view would be the status quot...but it just may be a lunatic your looking for considering what a great job all you 'sane' folks running things have done...

if you followed the link in my post that led elsewhere, you'd see that Dante favors decriminalization of possession and growing of cannabis over making it legal

the world of cannabis before it was criminalized.

 

[DNAprotection]

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

Try it with lemonade stands. You have this nice lemon tree and decide to sell lemonade at a lemonade stand in your own front yard. What result? We all know. It's done all the time.

Start growing some beautiful foxglove plants, or belladonna. No limit on those. But you harvest the leaves process them and sell them. Now what happens? Clue, it's the death penalty.

Maybe you missed the question...this question goes to your own use outside of commerce.

You might wish to review a case entitled Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 ( 1942). Case involved the ability of the feds to employ the commerce clause to prevent persons from growing wheat on their own property to be used exclusively on their own property. To make a long story short, SCOTUS said the Feds could do that.

As I stated in a previous post (its been a while so I hope I remember correctly), wasnt the farmer in that case singed into a USDA contract at the time and didnt that have some weight in that decision?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the poll is dumb as shit. I voted: yes. The question is irrelevant to whether the people have the right to outlaw it

 

[DNAprotection]

possession of cannabis is illegal

possession of tomatoes are not

we the people, through our government, could outlaw possession of tomatoes if we so wanted

The government would have to dream up a better reason than merely "we want to ban them". However, they could possibly dream up some rational reason for doing so.

The reason is coming hard and fast from the biotech industry and imo it won't be long before 'intellectual property' interests start claiming that naturally occurring varieties pose a genetic threat to their genetically engineered, patented and legally protected varieties.
Also it might be said that naturally occurring varieties are unpredictable and therefor to protect us from ourselves only FDA approved varieties of whatever are allowed etc.

 

[DNAprotection]

the poll is dumb as shit. I voted: yes. The question is irrelevant to whether the people have the right to outlaw it

Do you even read what you write to check for coherency before hitting submit reply?
I thought you said you were some kind of con' scholar?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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?

Did you read what the judge said? If so, why do you ask? If you can keep a cat in your house does it follow you should be able to keep a tiger?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the poll is dumb as shit. I voted: yes. The question is irrelevant to whether the people have the right to outlaw it

Do you even read what you write to check for coherency before hitting submit reply?
I thought you said you were some kind of con' scholar?

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?

again: the poll is dumb as shit. I voted: yes. The question is irrelevant to whether the people have the right to outlaw

We the people through our government restrict rights in order for society to function. and there are NO 'natural' rights

 

[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?

Did you read what the judge said? If so, why do you ask? If you can keep a cat in your house does it follow you should be able to keep a tiger?

First of all there is no relative comparison there...relatively speaking lol...
Also the judge has no case law to back his conclusion, in fact what little (and not to the direct point) case law there is would lead a judge to the opposite conclusion because of your tomato growing effecting commerce etc.
But the cases that have made the commerce precedent were only arguing that the plaintiffs activities were not effecting commerce, they were not arguing fundamental rights arguments per say.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

still haven't posted a link to the Judge and teh case so it can be vetted, have you?

 

[Avatar4321]

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

Try it with lemonade stands. You have this nice lemon tree and decide to sell lemonade at a lemonade stand in your own front yard. What result? We all know. It's done all the time.

Start growing some beautiful foxglove plants, or belladonna. No limit on those. But you harvest the leaves process them and sell them. Now what happens? Clue, it's the death penalty.

Maybe you missed the question...this question goes to your own use outside of commerce.

You might wish to review a case entitled Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 ( 1942). Case involved the ability of the feds to employ the commerce clause to prevent persons from growing wheat on their own property to be used exclusively on their own property. To make a long story short, SCOTUS said the Feds could do that.

Which was the wrong decision. I long for the day when that bad case gets overturned. Wish Roberts would have done it with the Obamacare case. Missed opportunity. But he did something completely insane insead.

 

[DNAprotection]

the poll is dumb as shit. I voted: yes. The question is irrelevant to whether the people have the right to outlaw it

Do you even read what you write to check for coherency before hitting submit reply?
I thought you said you were some kind of con' scholar?

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?

again: the poll is dumb as shit. I voted: yes. The question is irrelevant to whether the people have the right to outlaw

We the people through our government restrict rights in order for society to function. and there are NO 'natural' rights

lol so am I to understand that your scholarly constitutional knowledge that is superior to I guess even those who wrote the con to begin with maintains that there are no inalienable rights endowed to you by your 'creator'?