10 replies to this topic

[reDough]

I now live in a medical marijuana state and my doc wants me to smoke weed along with my pills as he thinks it will help. So all I need to do is get my state ID and he said I could have my card. Will I be able to post about it? Talk about different strains and how they are great or why they suck? Pics? I will probably go the cultivation route and not be a member of a dispensary. The difference in prices for a member versus non-member are usually pretty small. I'd gladly pay that 5-10% more in order to not give up my right to cultivate my own medicine. It would be pretty cool to rub it in the faces of those of you cannot do this. How heavily modded will I be when this day comes?

[reDough]

How in the world could anyone ever be proud to be an American?

[Mya]

[weave]

Scott dies a little every time he sees a thread titled "A question for the mods".

[Beejus McReejus]

Now this is starting to sound like CK.

[reDough]

[Area Man]

The words "turd in a punchbowl" come to mind.

[orudis]

if this is gonna be that kind a party I'm gonna stick my dick in the mashed potatoes!

[AspenLeif]

The really cool thing to do is get an ReTdMMJ license plate for your scooter! :cheers:MB

[LibraAle]

No. US Federal Law still lists marijuana as a controlled substance and any state law legalizing marijuana is null and void under the Supremacy Clause.

The Tenth Amendment leaves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people, and if pot is grown under regulated conditions within a state and not transported over state lines it doesn't affect interstate commerce, so this federal law is null and void on constitutional grounds.I'm not sure that I completely buy this argument, but there is an argument to be made, and I sort of think that Scott buys it, so...

[BlackBeerd]

The Tenth Amendment leaves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people, and if pot is grown under regulated conditions within a state and not transported over state lines it doesn't affect interstate commerce, so this federal law is null and void on constitutional grounds.I'm not sure that I completely buy this argument, but there is an argument to be made, and I sort of think that Scott buys it, so...

What was the basis of that ruling last week in West Verginia(?) on the health care bill? As state can't create a law that contradicts the Federal law?