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

[theDoctorisIn]

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

Link?

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.

What is "done all the time"? Again, link?

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.

No, it's not. What planet do you live on?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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'?

Those who wrote the USC unlike the Pope, were fallible.

 

[DNAprotection]

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

Here's a link to the judge he just retired...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yNe1MLz88]Judge David Herrick's Retirement Party - YouTube[/ame]

case # CV411794
County of Lake
Superior court of Cali...oral ruling came on 12/14/12 and the transcript is on file.
He talked on for about twenty minutes trying to justify his ruling.
Now you've got all a geniuscide such as yourself should need to go on

 

[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?

Who introduced the analogy the Judge addressed and what were their argument(s)?

You have federal law, state law, and local ordinances. This is all over the place.

For the analogy to hold, growing tomatoes would have to be illegal with an exemption for a certain class of people.

As far as local ordinances go, you'd be surprised at what a community can enact

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Before June 1998, California's trial courts consisted of superior and municipal courts, each with its own jurisdiction and number of judges fixed by the Legislature. In June 1998, California voters approved Proposition 220, a constitutional amendment that permitted the judges in each county to merge their superior and municipal courts into a "unified," or single, superior court. As of February 2001, all of California's 58 counties have voted to unify their trial courts.

Superior courts now have trial jurisdiction over all criminal cases including felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic matters. They also have jurisdiction over all civil cases including family law, probate, juvenile, and general civil matters. Nearly 8.8. million cases were filed in the trial courts at some 400 court locations throughout the state during 1998-1999.

Appeals in limited civil cases (where $25,000 or less is at issue) and misdemeanors are heard by the appellate division of the superior court. When a small claims case is appealed, a superior court judge decides the case

Superior Courts | David W. Herrick - Judgepedia | Superior Court of Lake County, California - Judgepedia


Just as I thought...

A Lake County judge Friday suspended enforcement of a county medical marijuana ordinance, halting a month-long crackdown on large pot gardens being grown under the auspices of the state's Compassionate Care Act.

“We won,” said Bay Area attorney Joe Elford, who represented four Lake County medical pot patients suing the county over an ordinance adopted July 9.

The victory is temporary, however. Judge David Herrick's ruling is aimed only at allowing people to harvest the pot crops they planted before the ordinance went into effect, Elford said. Herrick did not find the ordinance to be unconstitutional or in conflict with state laws, he said.

...

Elford said he'd never claimed people have an unfettered right to cultivate as much marijuana as they want. He said the plaintiffs were asking for their rights under the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act.

He said the county is prioritizing its enforcements. “Our role is not to go after legitimate patients and legitimate needs.”

The ordinance only limits outdoor cultivation, meaning there are alternatives, said Bridges. He said there are 24,000 potential sites in the county where a minimum six plants can be grown.

Bridges said that the Bill of Rights offers some of the most sacred rights – the right to bear arms, freedom of speech and freedom of the press – but he said all have reasonable regulation.

No right is totally free, said Bridges, yet he argued that the plaintiffs were saying they can grow as much marijuana as they need to. Bridges suggested they were claiming a “super right” exempt from all regulations, which he called unprecedented in the history of jurisprudence.

Elford said he wanted to start by extending an olive branch to the county, which he said “represents that it has no intention of going after the plaintiffs in this case” or people like them.

He asked that the temporary restraining order make the county good on its word.

Bridges said Elford was asking to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance, which he said the county intends to use to address egregious grows and environmental hazards. He said there are problems and “we need this ordinance.”

Bridges said he didn't have the authority to agree to Elford's stipulation, explaining that the plaintiffs were not their priority for enforcement.

The enforcements that have taken place so far have focused on dumped sewage, illegal wells, firearms and prescription drugs, said Bridges. “That's where we're going. We're going after the problems.”

“I'm simply asking for a temporary restraining order to hold them at their word,” said Elford

Judge exempts Lake County medical pot crop from new restrictions | PressDemocrat.com | Judge grants limited temporary restraining order against county over marijuana cultivation ordinance

---

 

[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?

Who introduced the analogy the Judge addressed and what were their argument(s)?

You have federal law, state law, and local ordinances. This is all over the place.

For the analogy to hold, growing tomatoes would have to be illegal with an exemption for a certain class of people.

As far as local ordinances go, you'd be surprised at what a community can enact

I'd be surprised? lol Dante I'm the one who just had to face all the statutes which provide such local authority and I can tell you I'm not at all surprised because folks (seemingly like you) who think gov is all powerful to do whatever it decides end of story are running every aspect of gov and of course are also merely corporate puppets for the most part.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

why is this thread not in the Law forum? Oh well...

 

[DNAprotection]

Dante what is your point in posting all of that?
Can't you just think for yourself based on a question?
Are you really that disconnected from who and what you are that you need to be supplied a definition written by someone else?

 

[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?

Who introduced the analogy the Judge addressed and what were their argument(s)?

You have federal law, state law, and local ordinances. This is all over the place.

For the analogy to hold, growing tomatoes would have to be illegal with an exemption for a certain class of people.

As far as local ordinances go, you'd be surprised at what a community can enact

I'd be surprised? lol Dante I'm the one who just had to face all the statutes which provide such local authority and I can tell you I'm not at all surprised because folks (seemingly like you) who think gov is all powerful to do whatever it decides end of story are running every aspect of gov and of course are also merely corporate puppets for the most part.

Actually, I've assisted people with local zoning and ordinance issues. People forget that in a representative system like ours, the government acts in the name of the people. Democracy is messy and so is the law. Justice is blind. That last fact is something that should be considered before people take an issue to court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

links. links to facts in the case and the history .. context

Dante what is your point in posting all of that?
Can't you just think for yourself based on a question?
Are you really that disconnected from who and what you are that you need to be supplied a definition written by someone else?

Context is king. Knowing where the arguments comes from helps frame an argument. You started out using a real case and not some hypothetical argument. That opened it all up for a mind like mine who likes to know the facts

 

[DNAprotection]

Who introduced the analogy the Judge addressed and what were their argument(s)?

You have federal law, state law, and local ordinances. This is all over the place.

For the analogy to hold, growing tomatoes would have to be illegal with an exemption for a certain class of people.

As far as local ordinances go, you'd be surprised at what a community can enact

I'd be surprised? lol Dante I'm the one who just had to face all the statutes which provide such local authority and I can tell you I'm not at all surprised because folks (seemingly like you) who think gov is all powerful to do whatever it decides end of story are running every aspect of gov and of course are also merely corporate puppets for the most part.

Actually, I've assisted people with local zoning and ordinance issues. People forget that in a representative system like ours, the government acts in the name of the people. Democracy is messy and so is the law. Justice is blind. That last fact is something that should be considered before people take an issue to court.

I think the real problem is that people are usually going to court for anything but fundamental constitutional questions that arent rooted in a monetary outcome.
Sadly you probably have no clue what I just meant by that.

 

[Avatar4321]

I still haven't seen a response to my question. Where does the Constitution protect our right to grow tomatos? I see no reason the state government could not outlaw it, heck the commerce clause might give the Federal government power to do so, though I hope no one would be stupid enough to pass such a law on a state or federal level.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

In your opinion, but not in fact.

Current Commerce Clause jurisprudence is predicated on sound and logical reasoning: that markets are not only National but global, that in order for the American economy to function successfully in the modern world there needs to be reasonable, responsible, and effective regulatory policy, and that Americans no longer earn a living on small family farms, in cottage industries, or as itinerate laborers; America’s 21st Century economy cannot function effectively subject only to 18th Century laws – to argue otherwise is reactionary idiocy.

 

[DNAprotection]

links. links to facts in the case and the history .. context

Dante what is your point in posting all of that?
Can't you just think for yourself based on a question?
Are you really that disconnected from who and what you are that you need to be supplied a definition written by someone else?

Context is king. Knowing where the arguments comes from helps frame an argument. You started out using a real case and not some hypothetical argument. That opened it all up for a mind like mine who likes to know the facts

Dante somehow I doubt you are really that genuinely interested and in any event all I could post are my pleadings in that state civil case because the case simply isnt on line to post links to and somehow I doubt you really want me to post a lengthy pleading.

 

[DNAprotection]

I still haven't seen a response to my question. Where does the Constitution protect our right to grow tomatos? I see no reason the state government could not outlaw it, heck the commerce clause might give the Federal government power to do so, though I hope no one would be stupid enough to pass such a law on a state or federal level.

as i once argued in fed court imo the protection of such self evident rights rests within the 9th amendment.

 

[Avatar4321]

I still haven't seen a response to my question. Where does the Constitution protect our right to grow tomatos? I see no reason the state government could not outlaw it, heck the commerce clause might give the Federal government power to do so, though I hope no one would be stupid enough to pass such a law on a state or federal level.

as i once argued in fed court imo the protection of such self evident rights rests within the 9th amendment.

Last time I checked, the 9th amendment did not say "The government cannot tell you not to grow tomatos".

In fact, I think if we went with that interpretation that almost every law and regulation would be unconstitutional.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, I've assisted people with local zoning and ordinance issues. People forget that in a representative system like ours, the government acts in the name of the people. Democracy is messy and so is the law. Justice is blind. That last fact is something that should be considered before people take an issue to court.

I think the real problem is that people are usually going to court for anything but fundamental constitutional questions that arent rooted in a monetary outcome. Sadly you probably have no clue what I just meant by that.

I disagree you have any clue what the real problem is.

 

[DNAprotection]

Actually, I've assisted people with local zoning and ordinance issues. People forget that in a representative system like ours, the government acts in the name of the people. Democracy is messy and so is the law. Justice is blind. That last fact is something that should be considered before people take an issue to court.

I think the real problem is that people are usually going to court for anything but fundamental constitutional questions that arent rooted in a monetary outcome. Sadly you probably have no clue what I just meant by that.

I disagree you have any clue what the real problem is.

I respect that
and i respectfully disagree

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

links. links to facts in the case and the history .. context

Dante what is your point in posting all of that?
Can't you just think for yourself based on a question?
Are you really that disconnected from who and what you are that you need to be supplied a definition written by someone else?

Context is king. Knowing where the arguments comes from helps frame an argument. You started out using a real case and not some hypothetical argument. That opened it all up for a mind like mine who likes to know the facts

Dante somehow I doubt you are really that genuinely interested and in any event all I could post are my pleadings in that state civil case because the case simply isnt on line to post links to and somehow I doubt you really want me to post a lengthy pleading.

What is extremely interesting is the tomato analogy. That has to be good. The Judge thought so

 

[DNAprotection]

I still haven't seen a response to my question. Where does the Constitution protect our right to grow tomatos? I see no reason the state government could not outlaw it, heck the commerce clause might give the Federal government power to do so, though I hope no one would be stupid enough to pass such a law on a state or federal level.

as i once argued in fed court imo the protection of such self evident rights rests within the 9th amendment.

Last time I checked, the 9th amendment did not say "The government cannot tell you not to grow tomatos".

In fact, I think if we went with that interpretation that almost every law and regulation would be unconstitutional.

Well I've been exposed to many interpretations of the 9th amen including a fed judges, but what is yours?