A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Feds to ban "breast milk"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 4th 04, 08:13 PM
Shai Schwan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Feds to ban "breast milk"?

The last paragraph is especially telling!




Posted on Sat, Dec. 04, 2004


Sanity's AWOL in war on drugs

BY SIDNEY ZION
New York Daily News

(KRT) - The latest battle in the great War on Drugs showed up in the
Supreme Court on Monday, with the feds arguing that if sick or dying
people are allowed to use homegrown marijuana for their pain, the
price on the streets will go down.

In the logic of the war department, this would have a terrible impact
on interstate commerce, where, presumably, Congress has an interest in
promoting the sale of marijuana.

If this strikes you as crazy, it's because you don't understand the
law, the necessary reach of a government that is grounded on the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution. We are talking now of the stuff
of lawyers and judges, who, when it comes to drugs, display no
immunity from going AWOL from reality.

First, the facts of the two cases out of California that the top court
heard this week. One involved a woman with inoperable brain cancer,
the other a woman whose severe back spasms require marijuana.

By referendum, California voters passed a law permitting the use of
marijuana under a doctor's order to relieve a variety of medical
ailments. Nine other states followed suit.

The federal drug enforcers answered by busting both women. The U.S.
Court of Appeals in California ruled for them on the grounds their
conduct did not fall within Congress' authority to regulate interstate
commerce because this had nothing to do with any kind of commerce,
much less interstate.

You might think the government would let cases like this pass or at
least show benign neglect. We're not talking about legalization of
narcotics here, just medicalization, just humanity.

But the War on Drugs has no interest in such sentimentality. This war
is 90 years old with nothing to show but failure, combined with
rampant corruption.

It doesn't matter. The more we lose, the more we spend. In the Supreme
Court arguments, the government estimated that the marijuana market
alone accounts for $10.5 billion a year - then asked the court to
knock out California's law in the name of helping the war succeed!

The argument that homegrown pot had an impact on interstate commerce
rests on a 1942 Supreme Court decision that allowed the feds to punish
a wheat grower for withholding his home consumption from the
Agriculture Department's regulations. The reason: If he hadn't used it
for his family, he'd have bought it in the marketplace, thus raising
the price of wheat, which Congress wanted.

Justice Anthony Scalia said he had always thought that case was a
joke, but now he opined that it was the law. Scalia, who votes for
states' rights except when he doesn't - see Gore v. Bush - said that
the old wheat ruling looked right to him now.

Students of Scalia, the sharpest man on the court, might have thought
he could separate the wheat from the weed. But the politics of drugs
has a way with the finest of minds, and according to reporters
covering the court, the majority is going to overturn the California
law.

I asked Yale Kamisar, the legendary law professor at Michigan Law
School, what he thought about this apparent reliance by the court on
the ancient wheat decision.

"I look at it this way," he said. "If they're right, the Congress can
ban breast-feeding because it has an economic impact on the interstate
sale of milk."

---

ABOUT THE WRITER

Sidney Zion is a columnist for the New York Daily News, 450 West 33rd
Street, New York, N.Y. 10001.

---

© 2004, New York Daily News.

Visit the Daily News online at http://www.nydailynews.com

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.



© 2004 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.fortwayne.com
  #2  
Old December 4th 04, 11:17 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What a great line the last comment makes!

I make my own mouth wash with essential oils for my personal use.
Pretty soon, the Procter & Gamble police should be knocking on my door
with the police backing them up. I'm definitely hurting them and the
Listerine folks, too.
--------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.itsnotjustforsex.com

  #3  
Old December 5th 04, 02:55 PM
Zaz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Completely out of topic, but you wouldn't happen to want to share your
mouthwash recipe, would you?


wrote in message
oups.com...
What a great line the last comment makes!

I make my own mouth wash with essential oils for my personal use.
Pretty soon, the Procter & Gamble police should be knocking on my door
with the police backing them up. I'm definitely hurting them and the
Listerine folks, too.
--------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.itsnotjustforsex.com



  #5  
Old December 6th 04, 02:57 AM
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wickard is the SCOTUS case dating from the early 1930's, wherein a
farmer had a section of wheat which he was growing solely for his own
use. The Courtheld that this "in aggregate" could affect the interstate
commerce of wheat. Thus the private growing of wheat for one's own
consumption could be regulated under the commerce clause.

The key part was the "in aggregate" finding.

To ban breast milk would require a similar finding.

J.



Shai Schwan wrote:
The last paragraph is especially telling!




Posted on Sat, Dec. 04, 2004


Sanity's AWOL in war on drugs

BY SIDNEY ZION
New York Daily News

(KRT) - The latest battle in the great War on Drugs showed up in the
Supreme Court on Monday, with the feds arguing that if sick or dying
people are allowed to use homegrown marijuana for their pain, the
price on the streets will go down.

In the logic of the war department, this would have a terrible impact
on interstate commerce, where, presumably, Congress has an interest in
promoting the sale of marijuana.

If this strikes you as crazy, it's because you don't understand the
law, the necessary reach of a government that is grounded on the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution. We are talking now of the stuff
of lawyers and judges, who, when it comes to drugs, display no
immunity from going AWOL from reality.

First, the facts of the two cases out of California that the top court
heard this week. One involved a woman with inoperable brain cancer,
the other a woman whose severe back spasms require marijuana.

By referendum, California voters passed a law permitting the use of
marijuana under a doctor's order to relieve a variety of medical
ailments. Nine other states followed suit.

The federal drug enforcers answered by busting both women. The U.S.
Court of Appeals in California ruled for them on the grounds their
conduct did not fall within Congress' authority to regulate interstate
commerce because this had nothing to do with any kind of commerce,
much less interstate.

You might think the government would let cases like this pass or at
least show benign neglect. We're not talking about legalization of
narcotics here, just medicalization, just humanity.

But the War on Drugs has no interest in such sentimentality. This war
is 90 years old with nothing to show but failure, combined with
rampant corruption.

It doesn't matter. The more we lose, the more we spend. In the Supreme
Court arguments, the government estimated that the marijuana market
alone accounts for $10.5 billion a year - then asked the court to
knock out California's law in the name of helping the war succeed!

The argument that homegrown pot had an impact on interstate commerce
rests on a 1942 Supreme Court decision that allowed the feds to punish
a wheat grower for withholding his home consumption from the
Agriculture Department's regulations. The reason: If he hadn't used it
for his family, he'd have bought it in the marketplace, thus raising
the price of wheat, which Congress wanted.

Justice Anthony Scalia said he had always thought that case was a
joke, but now he opined that it was the law. Scalia, who votes for
states' rights except when he doesn't - see Gore v. Bush - said that
the old wheat ruling looked right to him now.

Students of Scalia, the sharpest man on the court, might have thought
he could separate the wheat from the weed. But the politics of drugs
has a way with the finest of minds, and according to reporters
covering the court, the majority is going to overturn the California
law.

I asked Yale Kamisar, the legendary law professor at Michigan Law
School, what he thought about this apparent reliance by the court on
the ancient wheat decision.

"I look at it this way," he said. "If they're right, the Congress can
ban breast-feeding because it has an economic impact on the interstate
sale of milk."

---

ABOUT THE WRITER

Sidney Zion is a columnist for the New York Daily News, 450 West 33rd
Street, New York, N.Y. 10001.

---

© 2004, New York Daily News.

Visit the Daily News online at http://www.nydailynews.com

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.



© 2004 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.fortwayne.com

  #6  
Old December 6th 04, 04:43 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sure.

It's simple. I use filtered water and put a couple of drops each of
clove oil, tea tree oil, eucaplytus, and bergamot for good measure. I
store it in a dark glass bottle, and shake it before each use.

If you don't have all the oils, that's okay.

Now that I'm putting it here on the internet, will it harm interstate
commerce? Will the Supreme Court ban it?

  #7  
Old December 6th 04, 04:46 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't you find the court's ruling on wheat to be a ridicuous meddling
by the court? I do.
------------------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.itsnotjustforsex.com

  #8  
Old December 6th 04, 07:18 PM
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think it is somewhat of a stretch.
But, by extending the commerce clause, the Supreme Court avoided a
constitutional crisis, but the outcome was the vast bureaucratic,
regulatory govt of today.

j.

wrote:
Don't you find the court's ruling on wheat to be a ridicuous meddling
by the court? I do.
------------------------------------------------------------
Visit
http://www.itsnotjustforsex.com

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 October 29th 04 05:23 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 August 29th 04 05:28 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:41 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 March 18th 04 10:11 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 15th 03 10:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.