Thursday, May 28, 2009
Progress Update - Week 8 EOC
I am still gathering more facts of the case to solidify my material for the rest of the points that need to be included in the Final Project breakdown. I will structure next couple points to include my opinion and weather i agree or disagree based on facts that are stated. there are not many resources to look up facts about this case. I will continue to pull up local press or websites about this case. and I will also look at similar cases cause somehow i get the feeling that this case is broad and tied into other findings and issues that arose. I would have to break down the 2 parties and facts of both parties on why they entered a supreme court case. I would have to look at existing laws during that time frame and how they affected the arguement. I will also try to include morality within my opinions and judgements about the case. I will make it as detailed as possible. I will also include a more detailed summary of facts based on State laws and federal laws on marijuana use and prohibition. And also my personal views on the laws itself.1) Issue of the Case - I will try to include issues coming from the plaintiff and defendant. And also my opinion of both and where I agree and disagree.2) Decision of the court - I will include my opinion on the court decision and validating points as much as possible.
1- Facts of Case
supreme court case 03-1454
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act(Prop 215), which legalized marijuana for medical use. Within prop 215, it is stated that, with a doctors recommendation, patients are able to posses, use and cultivate marijuana for medicinal use. The law that passed has, since then, conflicted with federal laws’ Controlled Substaces Act(CSA), which banned the possession of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) seized marijuana from a patient. A group of marijuana patients then sued the DEA and the US Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
Respondents Raich and Monson, California residents who both use marijuana which was perscribed by doctors for serious medical conditions. DEA Seized and destoyed Monson's cannabis plants. Respondents claim that the DEA, who then performed the seizure under the CSAwas in violation of the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The district court denied the respondents' motion for the injunction. but the ninth circuit court reversed. they found that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress'
Commerce clause authority as it only applied to the intrastate, non commercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical uses. as recommended by a doctor, pursuant to prop 215. Ninth circuit relied on the USvsLopez court case(514 US 549) and US vs Morrizon(529 US 598), recognizing that this cas of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.
9th Circuit court of California ruled in favor of Raich. However, US government filed petition with the US supreme court to appeal the case.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.zs.html
www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act(Prop 215), which legalized marijuana for medical use. Within prop 215, it is stated that, with a doctors recommendation, patients are able to posses, use and cultivate marijuana for medicinal use. The law that passed has, since then, conflicted with federal laws’ Controlled Substaces Act(CSA), which banned the possession of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) seized marijuana from a patient. A group of marijuana patients then sued the DEA and the US Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.
Respondents Raich and Monson, California residents who both use marijuana which was perscribed by doctors for serious medical conditions. DEA Seized and destoyed Monson's cannabis plants. Respondents claim that the DEA, who then performed the seizure under the CSAwas in violation of the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The district court denied the respondents' motion for the injunction. but the ninth circuit court reversed. they found that the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress'
Commerce clause authority as it only applied to the intrastate, non commercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical uses. as recommended by a doctor, pursuant to prop 215. Ninth circuit relied on the USvsLopez court case(514 US 549) and US vs Morrizon(529 US 598), recognizing that this cas of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power.
9th Circuit court of California ruled in favor of Raich. However, US government filed petition with the US supreme court to appeal the case.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.zs.html
www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454
Thursday, May 21, 2009
EOC – Week 7 Property rights
What are your rights as a property owner?
Your rights as a property owner is to uphold any and every other legal rights to anyone else in the house. For the sake of the movie. The rights that the land lord have for the other tenants are still obligated. If I was the property owner I would have pressed charges the moment the unwanted tenant entered the house without regard. The moment he was in the house without permission of the land lord is trespassing. There was no contracts signed and also no money that was transferred from the tenant to land lord. As far as I am concerned the guy with the Porsche is homeless. I think the laws favor owners over tenants. I think I would have a right to lay the smack down or to take matters in my own hands. I would kick the door down and vacate the house and let the judge decide who was right and wrong in the situation. Humans have a general idea of what is right and what is wrong. We are born with it, we have a general map of right and wrong. And I am assuming that the law has a certain idea of right and wrong. The movie was probably glamorized to prove a point. As a land lord I think I have a right to kick anyone out of the house if they didn’t pay the rent. At the very least put an eviction notice because down payment or rent was not received. As a property owner you have a right to call the police and/or lawyer when you think a tort is committed against you. Of course you have a right to be upset but being violent may not stand in court. You also have a right to publicize your situation to any editorial or newscast in an attempt to gain public acceptance and or legal expedition.
Your rights as a property owner is to uphold any and every other legal rights to anyone else in the house. For the sake of the movie. The rights that the land lord have for the other tenants are still obligated. If I was the property owner I would have pressed charges the moment the unwanted tenant entered the house without regard. The moment he was in the house without permission of the land lord is trespassing. There was no contracts signed and also no money that was transferred from the tenant to land lord. As far as I am concerned the guy with the Porsche is homeless. I think the laws favor owners over tenants. I think I would have a right to lay the smack down or to take matters in my own hands. I would kick the door down and vacate the house and let the judge decide who was right and wrong in the situation. Humans have a general idea of what is right and what is wrong. We are born with it, we have a general map of right and wrong. And I am assuming that the law has a certain idea of right and wrong. The movie was probably glamorized to prove a point. As a land lord I think I have a right to kick anyone out of the house if they didn’t pay the rent. At the very least put an eviction notice because down payment or rent was not received. As a property owner you have a right to call the police and/or lawyer when you think a tort is committed against you. Of course you have a right to be upset but being violent may not stand in court. You also have a right to publicize your situation to any editorial or newscast in an attempt to gain public acceptance and or legal expedition.
3's
3ʻs About Me
Three Names I have been called:
Sly-mer, Twix, Gumby
Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
Graffitti Paint over volunteer, Intel Corporation technician, FX Motorsports Development technician
Three Places I Have Lived:
Waipahu HI, Bay Area CA, Las Vegas NV
Three TV Shows that I watch:
River Monsters, Worlds Deadliest Catch, Whale Wars
Three places I have been:
Pillippines, Pitsburgh, BC Canada
Three People that e-mail me regularly
Faith, Heather, Reiko
Three of my favorite foods
Kare-Kare, Poke, Shoyu Chicken
Three cars I have driven:
87 Toyota Camry, 90 Honda Civic, 95 Honda Civic
Three things I am looking forward to:
Winter, Job Interviews, Next Quarter
Three Names I have been called:
Sly-mer, Twix, Gumby
Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
Graffitti Paint over volunteer, Intel Corporation technician, FX Motorsports Development technician
Three Places I Have Lived:
Waipahu HI, Bay Area CA, Las Vegas NV
Three TV Shows that I watch:
River Monsters, Worlds Deadliest Catch, Whale Wars
Three places I have been:
Pillippines, Pitsburgh, BC Canada
Three People that e-mail me regularly
Faith, Heather, Reiko
Three of my favorite foods
Kare-Kare, Poke, Shoyu Chicken
Three cars I have driven:
87 Toyota Camry, 90 Honda Civic, 95 Honda Civic
Three things I am looking forward to:
Winter, Job Interviews, Next Quarter
Thursday, May 14, 2009
greed is good week 6 EOC
Greed is good
EOC Week6
Business Law
In any field in any business, if you are an expert on a subject, it gives you a certain amount advantage over normal people. So be it. Greed is good in an enterprise and worldwide sense. The owner ship of materials or currency itself is with the element of Greed. Experts will use what they know in order to gain most prophet. No matter who loses. I con concur that it is not always about having enough, rather its about doing more. A venture capitalists only concern is to venture out into the global market and capitalizing on any and all prophets that may come along.
Performance bonuses are sometimes extreme. And in many cases the only people who will benefit from them are the some people who created them. These are usually people who are high up the food chain. The non laborers. Whatever happened to compensating the people who actually ran a business? I believe the performance bonuses should have a cap on some sort based on a dollar amount and not on percentage. These people who create these bonuses can already picture the amount because they are experts at what they do. It gives them a compeling reason to follow through with a particular plan, often neglecting the cream of the crop laborers.
In all I have mixed feelings with this subject. I believe that greed is good only with the correct principles and morals in place. It may be the underlying driving force in propelling a worldwide enterprise but who is to know when it is enough? Greed is only good in the right hands. There has to be a balance in it to where compensation is without ridiculous performance bonuses. Its sad to know that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
EOC Week6
Business Law
In any field in any business, if you are an expert on a subject, it gives you a certain amount advantage over normal people. So be it. Greed is good in an enterprise and worldwide sense. The owner ship of materials or currency itself is with the element of Greed. Experts will use what they know in order to gain most prophet. No matter who loses. I con concur that it is not always about having enough, rather its about doing more. A venture capitalists only concern is to venture out into the global market and capitalizing on any and all prophets that may come along.
Performance bonuses are sometimes extreme. And in many cases the only people who will benefit from them are the some people who created them. These are usually people who are high up the food chain. The non laborers. Whatever happened to compensating the people who actually ran a business? I believe the performance bonuses should have a cap on some sort based on a dollar amount and not on percentage. These people who create these bonuses can already picture the amount because they are experts at what they do. It gives them a compeling reason to follow through with a particular plan, often neglecting the cream of the crop laborers.
In all I have mixed feelings with this subject. I believe that greed is good only with the correct principles and morals in place. It may be the underlying driving force in propelling a worldwide enterprise but who is to know when it is enough? Greed is only good in the right hands. There has to be a balance in it to where compensation is without ridiculous performance bonuses. Its sad to know that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Bong Hits for Jesus - they assumed, bong=illegal drug use
I disagree with the ruling of the supreme court to Frederick. The banner was assumed as a pro-drug banner. As stated by school officials, the banner that read “bong hits 4 jesus” was pro-drug. It sounded like the school officials supported the fact that the banner which included the word ‘bong’ was to promote illegal drugs… lets look more into this.
In most states Marijuana is illegal. In most states drug parafinalia is illegal. But a bong, as well as tobacco papers is sometimes misconstrued as an apparatus for illegal drugs.
So how do we get bongs in the market? In almost all of the smoke shops that I have been to, merchants are not allowed to refer any of the smoking parafenallia for use of anything else but tobacco. For example, they would sell tobacco pipes, hookah pipes, tobacco bongs, water pipes for tobacco. All of the pipes or smoking devices is refered to and sold as tobacco smoking products. This is because if they market these products for something ‘illegal’ such as ‘marijuana pipe’, it will make their establishment illegal because of illegal parafenallia distribution. So smoke shops would sell the products under legal terms. Society now may realize that a bong is not nescessarily an illegal item for drugs. It just became a legal item for tobacco use.
Now considering the whole ‘tobacco pipe’ industry. A tobacco bong is completely legal for sale and use. A banner that read ‘marijuana hits 4 jesus’ may be pro-drug and the school officials have every right to discipline Frederick for a pro drug banner.
However, a banner the reads ‘bong hits 4 jesus’ has no indication that a bong is for tobacco or an illegal drug, marijuana for this matter, therefore deeming the school official reasoning for the allegation invalid for illegality. While reading this article, it feels like the school officials all the way up to the supreme court made the COMPLETE ASSUMPTION that the stated ‘bong’ word in the banner ‘bong hits 4 jesus’ was for marijuana and not of tobacco. The word bong is heavily misconstrued and assumed that the use for it is totally for illegal drug. When it could simply be a tobacco bong and deemed legal.
In most states Marijuana is illegal. In most states drug parafinalia is illegal. But a bong, as well as tobacco papers is sometimes misconstrued as an apparatus for illegal drugs.
So how do we get bongs in the market? In almost all of the smoke shops that I have been to, merchants are not allowed to refer any of the smoking parafenallia for use of anything else but tobacco. For example, they would sell tobacco pipes, hookah pipes, tobacco bongs, water pipes for tobacco. All of the pipes or smoking devices is refered to and sold as tobacco smoking products. This is because if they market these products for something ‘illegal’ such as ‘marijuana pipe’, it will make their establishment illegal because of illegal parafenallia distribution. So smoke shops would sell the products under legal terms. Society now may realize that a bong is not nescessarily an illegal item for drugs. It just became a legal item for tobacco use.
Now considering the whole ‘tobacco pipe’ industry. A tobacco bong is completely legal for sale and use. A banner that read ‘marijuana hits 4 jesus’ may be pro-drug and the school officials have every right to discipline Frederick for a pro drug banner.
However, a banner the reads ‘bong hits 4 jesus’ has no indication that a bong is for tobacco or an illegal drug, marijuana for this matter, therefore deeming the school official reasoning for the allegation invalid for illegality. While reading this article, it feels like the school officials all the way up to the supreme court made the COMPLETE ASSUMPTION that the stated ‘bong’ word in the banner ‘bong hits 4 jesus’ was for marijuana and not of tobacco. The word bong is heavily misconstrued and assumed that the use for it is totally for illegal drug. When it could simply be a tobacco bong and deemed legal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
