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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 09:11 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 15th 03 09:42 AM |