My Recent Comments

• Ms. Short, would you care to share the amount of your compensation package from your Keep AZ "Drug" Free dog and pony show so that we may judge for ourselves the level your vested financial interest in perpetuating the idiocy of the absolute prohibition of cannabis? Also, please disclose any other compensation that's related to your "work" such as book royalties or advances, speaking fees, etc. You haven't got anything to hide, right?
  12 months ago
• NumberOne1AZfan, I hate to be the one to break it to you sunshine but Arizona already has a medicinal cannabis patient protection law. That must be what you mean because Arizona has had medicinal cannabis for decades, and decades, and decades.
  Oct 1, 2011
• But what you're missing in the vacant space between your ears is that Prop 203 is not contrary to Federal law. California's Compassionate Use Act is in it's 15th year, and has been in front of the SCOTUS 4 times. Would you care to explain why the SCOTUS hasn't struck that law down considering that it's had 4 opportunities to do so? Sorry old man, you're wrong Prop 203 is well within the rights of Arizona to adopt as law, and that opinion has the blessing of the SCOTUS.
  Jul 9, 2011
• What flapdoodle AG Horne. It's well understood by those involved that those involved in distribution are subject to, and have been charged, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for violating Federal law in other States. I think New Mexico is the one State which has somehow had their medicinal cannabis vendors not get charged. The one and only, singular responsibility that the State of Arizona has is to not tell these vendors that Arizona's law will protect them from Federal prosecution. Quite frankly I have no clue why anyone considers taking up the job of running or working at a dispensary but god bless them, they're doing the work of the angels. Then again that's probably what has Ms. Brewer's and Mr. Horne's panties in a bunch because they work for the competition. (god vs satan). I can hear the comments about these State government clowns getting a vicious tongue lashing from the Church Lady as we speak. Say Mr. Horne, exactly how many of those ~50 cases filed by the ACLU did you win, and how many did you lose, you know, when you were "doing your job"? While the ACLU does seem to prefer to be on what most would describe as "liberal" they are involved in at least one case on this issue where they're arguing a "State's rights" case alleging 10th Amendment violations by the Feds. It's not a new thing either, that particular action commenced in 2002. Quite frankly liberals make me nauseous. Particularly those liberals who dress up in conservative drag. No need to mention names Ms. Brewer and Mr. Horne.
  Jul 8, 2011

• It is very strange that Mr. Beydler seems to think wasting public resources on a total loser of a legal action is the "right thing" to do.

  There is absolutely zero chance of the Federal Courts striking this law. The issue was in front of the SCOTUS in 2009 and they declined to even hear the case of County of San Diego vs San Diego NORML.

  One of the more amusing things about the case is that San Diego NORML had nothing to do with the litigation beyond threatening to sue San Diego County if they didn't start issuing patient ID cards in compliance with SB-420. So San Diego County sued them preemptively which is how it got its name.

  http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202423436702 quoted from link above -----> "The court concluded that the County lacked standing to challenge those portions of the MMP and CUA that did not apply to it and did not injuriously affect it. That included major portions of the enactments, which did not impose obligations on the County or inflict injury upon it. Deciding the validity of those provisions would amount to giving an impermissible advisory opinion.

  To the extent limited portions of the MMP, namely those provisions requiring counties to adopt and operate the identification card system, did impose obligations on the County, the County had standing to raise preemption claims strictly in that regard.

  The court then turned to the issue of preemption, the touchstone of which was Congress’s intent in enacting the CSA. In particular, the CSA expressly limits preemption to only those state laws in which there is a positive conflict between the federal and state law so that the two cannot consistently operate together.

  The court determined that the state identification laws did not positively conflict with the CSA. The County identified no provision of the CSA that necessarily was violated when a county complied with its obligations under the state laws. To the contrary, the CSA was entirely silent on the ability of states to provide identification cards to citizens, and an entity that did so did not engage in conduct banned by the CSA.

  As a result, because the CSA did not compel the states to impose criminal penalties for marijuana possession, the requirement that counties issue identification cards for those against whom California had opted not to impose criminal penalties did not positively conflict with the CSA.

  ----------

  Like I said earlier, the SCOTUS wasn't interested so it's only binding in California but it sure broadcasts the SCOTUS' opinion loud and clear.

  Don't be too disappointed when this action is tossed and Prop 203 remains the law of the land. It's a foregone conclusion.

  Jun 10, 2011

• Hogwash. Hypocrisy, thy name is Brewer.

  There is absolutely zero chance of the Federal Courts striking this law. Ms Brewer most certainly knows that unless she's mentally incompetent.The issue was in front of the SCOTUS in 2009 and they declined to even hear the case of County of San Diego vs San Diego NORML

  One of the more amusing things about the case is that San Diego NORML had nothing to do with the litigation beyond threatening to sue San Diego County if they didn't start issuing patient ID cards in compliance with SB-420. So San Diego County sued them preemptively which is how it got its name.

  http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202423436702

  quoted from link above -----> "The court concluded that the County lacked standing to challenge those portions of the MMP and CUA that did not apply to it and did not injuriously affect it. That included major portions of the enactments, which did not impose obligations on the County or inflict injury upon it. Deciding the validity of those provisions would amount to giving an impermissible advisory opinion.

  To the extent limited portions of the MMP, namely those provisions requiring counties to adopt and operate the identification card system, did impose obligations on the County, the County had standing to raise preemption claims strictly in that regard. The court then turned to the issue of preemption, the touchstone of which was Congress’s intent in enacting the CSA. In particular, the CSA expressly limits preemption to only those state laws in which there is a positive conflict between the federal and state law so that the two cannot consistently operate together.

  The court determined that the state identification laws did not positively conflict with the CSA. The County identified no provision of the CSA that necessarily was violated when a county complied with its obligations under the state laws. To the contrary, the CSA was entirely silent on the ability of states to provide identification cards to citizens, and an entity that did so did not engage in conduct banned by the CSA.

  As a result, because the CSA did not compel the states to impose criminal penalties for marijuana possession, the requirement that counties issue identification cards for those against whom California had opted not to impose criminal penalties did not positively conflict with the CSA.

  Like I said, the SCOTUS wasn't interested so it's only binding in California but that sure broadcasts the SCOTUS' opinion loud and clear.

  May 31, 2011
• It's hard to believe that there are people like Leon. Leon, Meth (Desoxyn), cocaine, oxycodone (Oxycontin) are already legal by prescription in the US. Medicinal meth is legal for school children older than age 6. Other countries like Great Britain have legal heroin by prescription, and I'm not talking about like the Swiss HAT program for maintenance of addiction. The US doesn't allow prescriptions of heroin, but we sure do allow fentanyl. Fentanyl sitting next to heroin makes heroin look like pablum. It's too bad that you haven't the native intelligence to understand that it's prohibition that empowers and enriches the organized criminal syndicates, and that it is prohibition that is causing the social disorder that you're trying to blame on those that are trying to get needed medicine to as many people as possible in the face of an intransigent government which refuses to even look at the evidence. It really is a shame that there are people so shortsighted and selfish that they'd make the sick suffer to maintain the charade of prohibition. It's despicable, cruel, and morally bankrupt and the really sad thing is that it doesn't even produce the end that they claim is the goal.
  May 29, 2011

• This lame action has 0 (zero) chance of shutting down the program. The same ditzy argument was used in County of San Diego v San Diego NORML (2009). They lost.

  http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/documents/sandiego.aspx

  quoted from link: -----> "In an action in which counties argued that the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP) invalid under preemption principles, the trial court concluded that the MMP and the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 were not preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act and that the MMP was not invalid under the California Constitution. (Superior Court of San Diego County, Nos. GIC860665 and GIC861051, William R. Nevitt, Jr., Judge.) --------------------

  The SCOTUS declined to hear the County's appeal. That's 3 times that the SCOTUS has passed by the opportunity to overturn Cali's medicinal cannabis patient protection laws.

  http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-19/bay-area/17202601_1_medical-marijuana-san-diego-county-drug-laws

  quoted: "Prop. 215 remains in effect despite federal enforcement efforts that began as soon as it passed. In the counties' case, the court left intact a state ruling last year that said California remains free to decide whether to punish drug users under its own laws.

  "The purpose of the (federal law) is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices," the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Diego said in the July 31 decision."

  "No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California's medical marijuana law," said Joe Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, which also took part in the case."

  ------------------

  It seems Mr. Elford didn't understand just how low some public officials will go in order to promote their own self serving political agendas.

  May 28, 2011
• Amazing how quick they forget "WE THE PEOPLE......." or forget that for the last year they've been telling the Feds to stay out of their lawbooks because they want to send the wetbacks home. This is a dictionary picture example of the word hypocrisy.
  May 24, 2011
• It's also a violation of the protection of Prop 203. Why is it these people have such a hard time living within laws which they don't like?
  Feb 16, 2011