keoniangel

7- The Dissent

2009-06-18T11:01:00.001-07:00

7- Dissent – The case was decided 6-3 in favor of the petitioners. 3 Justices dissent.

“The Supreme Court handed down its decision today against Raich. The vote was 6-3 to reverse the 9th Circuit with the decision written by Stevens. O'Connor, Renquist, and Thomas dissented.”

“This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering…”

Since California took the initiative to legalize Marijuana on the State level, the states, through ballot have chosen to some degree to experiment on how to handle marijuana and regulate it without compromising the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. On a state level concluding weather they may use marijuana for medicinal purposes. “States as Laboratories” which imply that they are doing their own research and development regarding Marijuana. Which I think includes cultivation, possession, use, economical effects, regulation, health effects. Since 1996(prop 215 – legalize Marijuana for medicinal purposes) it is becoming more accepted in the state of California.

“ Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation...”

However on the Federal level, with the application of the Controlled Substace Act(Marijuana as Schedule 1 drug) It totally “extinguishesʻ the States initiative and or research and development on Marijuana. The thing that popped out of my mind is the argument on the petitionors side it is “without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medinial purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.” ʻWITH OUT ANY PROOF”

The CSA does not reason, does not have any compassion toward its uses for someone with Brain Cancer(respondent – Raich)…and is not specific on marijuana commerce alone. Which means, there is no way of knowing if in fact it does or does not affect interstate commerce, and/or the national marijuana market. Rather, the CSA is merely a comprehensive act which placed Marijuana in that category to regulate on a federal level, Injunction with the Supremacy Clause(federal over state).

“In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause -- nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes -- rather than with precision. That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000). Accordingly I dissent. [...] “

The courts ruling on this case goes in favor of congress, in which she included that it is a ʻperverse incentive to legislateʻ. ʻnestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemesʻ RATHER THAN WITH PRECISIONʻ

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292[^]293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

- from the dissent by Justice O'Connor”

- http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

“The powers by the proposed constitution to the federal government are FEW AND DEFINED.”

“Those(powers) which are to remain in the state government are NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE.”

“The powers to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”

These few statements reiterates the dissent opinion. Reinforcing my opinion on that the CSA, a comprehensive regulation, is not Few and Defined but rather ambiguous.

The following statement was by Justice OʻConnor. One who actually ruled against the respondent(Raich). It sounds like some sort of mild dissent. However I thought it was interesting to include it.

“We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.

Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

- from the opinion by Justice Stevens”

I gained a greater understanding of this case while understanding the dissent alone. It sounds like this is just a small part in effort to legalize Marijuana not only for use, cultivation, possession(state level), but for commerce too, specifically interstate commerce(federal level) It was interesting to read the dissents and what the opinion implied about the CSA and that its regulation is “opinion” based(theory) and not “research” based(evident). I really feel that the CSA is obsolete and it may be amended in the future. The dissent makes it one step closer.

6- Your own argument

2009-06-17T23:37:00.001-07:00

6- Your own argument. Did you agree or disagree with the ruling. Provide some authority for your argument.

I Disagree with the ruling, specifically in the case of Ashcroft vs. Raich. According to the CSA, which was written in 1970, It seems obsolete to conclude that Marijuana has no medical purpose according to the CSA(federal level).

I feel that the respondents, within the State level (California) Proposition 215 – Compassionate Use Act, which allows the use of Marijuana for Medical purposes, was totally legal. With a Doctors recommendation (opinion) Marijuana may be used for a given number of symptoms. Since its inception (1996) the goal of prop 215 was to provide a safe and affordable system for the use and distribution of marijuana. Prop 215 enabled the State of California to some degree do its own “research” on Marijuana, as a medicine, as a market. Since 1996, the market for medical marijuana has grown and advanced as a science. Because of its allowed use on a state level, more findings become available publicly.

The respondents were terminally ill and needed Marijuana in order to stay alive and deal with her illness(brain tumor). And I don’t agree that her cultivation or use of Marijuana affected the national market detrimentally to the CSA. I believe that it is merely a formality within the CSA that needs to be amended.

The following study was conducted around 2002.

Summary of 2480 Medical Marijuana Patients

Interviewed by Dr. Tod Mikuriya

Source: Dale Gieringer, "Medical Use of Cannabis in California," in Franjo Grotenhermen, M.D. & Ethan Russo, M.D., ed., Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential, Haworth Press, 2002

Nausea & Appetite Loss

Total: 113 = 4.6%

hepatitis 42

AIDS/HIV 25

cancer* 29

nausea, other 17

* includes chemotherapy patients w/ nausea & others w/ post-operative pain, etc.

Spasms, Convulsions

Total 228 =9.2%

head, brain injury 45

epilepsy 25

spasm 23

quad/paraplegia 21

lower back pain 20

MS 15

colitis 19

pylorospasm 9

post-Polio 7

others 44

(cerebral palsy, Tourette¹s, et al.)

Analgesia / ³Immunomodulatory Anti-Inflammant²

Total 1133 = 45.7%

(A) Migraine and Neuralgias

Subtotal: 179 = 7.2%

migraine 127

neuropathy 22

sinusitis 12

psychogenic pain 5

other pain, neuralgias 13

(B) Arthritis

Subtotal 433 =17.5%

arthritis, post-traumatic 318

arthritis, degenerative 37

fibromyalgia 21

arthropathy 22

myofascial pain 11

rheumatoid arthritis 10

psoriatic arthritis 5

other arthritis 9

(inc. lupus, polyarthritis et al)

(C) Spinal & Skeletal Disorders:

Subtotal 366 =14.8%

lumbosacral back disease 175

disks & vertebra diseases 88

scoliosis 33

spondylolisthesis 12

spinal stenosis 7

spondylosis 6

other spinal 12

sacrum disorder 11

other skeletal 22

(D) Injury, trauma

Subtotal 57 =2.3%

sprain, whiplash 36

carpal tunnel 12

other trauma 9

(E) Gastrointestinal:

Subtotal 68 =2.7%

gastritis 50

peptic ulcer 10

Crohn's Disease 5

other intestinal 3

(F) Other Inflammatory 30 =1.2%

(endometriosis, panniculitis, pruritis et al.)

Mood Disorders

Total 660 = 26.6%

post-traumatic stress disorder 274

depression 162

anxiety disorder 73

dysthymic disorder 46

bipolar disorder 34

schizophrenia 26

attention deficit disorder 15

obsessive compulsive disorder 8

panic disorder 5

other psychiatric 17

Insomnia

Total 71 = 2.9%

Harm Reduction / Substitution

Total: 136 = 5.5%

alcohol dependency 118

opiate dependency 8

others 10

Glaucoma & eye diseases

Total: 24 = 1.0%

glaucoma 15

others 9

(drusen cyst, disease of conjuntiva, et al)

Asthma:

Total 53 =2.1%

Miscellaneous:

Total 62 = 2.5%

Pre-Menstrual Stress 24

Lyme disease 8

hypertension 7

others 23

(tinnitus, Meniere¹s disease, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, et al.) I was personally apart of such market. I was recommended by my doctor and was written a prescription to use marijuana for medical purposes.

http://canorml.org/prop/MMJIndications.htm

www.canorml.org

5 – Rule of law - a concise summary of the main precedent established.

2009-06-17T22:28:00.000-07:00

5 – Rule of law - a concise summary of the main precedent established.

In this case, under the Supremacy Clause, pursuant to the Controlled Substance Act, of which lists Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, federal government(congress) may regulate such Cultivation, and usage of Marijuana on the local level because it affects the national marijuana market(commerce) even if they are purely local activities performed by respondents.

4 - Reasoning of the Court

2009-06-17T22:14:00.000-07:00

4 – Reasoning of the Court - analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges

Opinion by Judge Stevens

This case comes to us from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

California is one of at least nine states that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution its authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

Respondents are seriously ill California residents.

Their doctors have concluded after unsuccessfully prescribing a host of conventional medicines that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment.

Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis.

While respondents’ activities do not violate California law, they do violate the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970, a comprehensive regulatory statute which, among other things, categorically prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana for any purpose.

After agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration seized and destroyed their cannabis plants, respondents filed this action to prohibit enforcement of the federal statute to the extent that it prevents them from cultivating marijuana for their personal medical use.

The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that as applied to their activities, the CSA exceeded Congress power under the Commerce Clause.

Because of the obvious importance of the case, we granted certiorari.

The case is extremely troublesome because respondents have made such a strong showing that they will suffer irreparable harm if denied the use of marijuana to treat their serious medical illness.

But the question before us is not whether marijuana does in fact have valid therapeutic purposes, nor whether it is a good policy for the Federal Government to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in these circumstances.

Rather, the only question before us is whether Congress has the power to prohibit respondents’ activities.

California law does not really affect our answer to that question for it is well-settled that the outer limits of congressional power under the Commerce Clause are defined exclusively by federal law.

The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.

The federal power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power.

Our case law firmly establishes that Congress has the power to regulate purely local activities when necessary to implement a comprehensive national regulatory program.

Neither the fact that respondents used locally grown marijuana for medicinal rather than recreational purposes, nor the fact that their use for such purposes is permitted by California Law, justifies a constitutionally-compelled exemption from the comprehensive regulatory scheme created by the Controlled Substances Act.

For the reason stated at length in an opinion filed with the Clerk, we therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment; Justice O’Connor has filed a dissenting opinion in which the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas have joined except for part three of, and Justice Thomas has also filed a dissenting opinion.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/opinion

Reasoning of the court was upheld by the Controlled Substance Act(commerce clause – Defined by federal law). It was riterated that the local activites of the respondents, even though purely local, may affect interstate commerce and there fore affect the national marijuana market(Marijuana is Schedule 1 Drug under CSA). In Which Congress does have the power to regulate purely local activities(that of which is the activities of the respondents) under the commerce clause, even if there is a discrepancy between state and federal law in this case. Pursuant under the Supremacy Clause, in any case that there is a conflict between State and Federal law, Federal law prevails over the State. California law does not affect decision of the court.

3 - Decision of the Court

2009-06-17T11:51:00.000-07:00

The decision(6-3) was in favor of the Petitionor Attourney general Ashcroft. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the ʻcommerce clauseʻ gave congress authority to prohibit local cultivation. In short, the local cultivation of Marjuana affected the national marijuana market. And, that Raichsʻ activities were under that of which falls under the Controlled Substances Act.

“No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.”

Quote from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

The Dissent Opinion

Justices Rehnquist, OʻConnor, Thomas

With a statement from justice OʻConnor stated from a previous case precedent, she has dissented. Giving compassion to the subject matter. Stating that the role of the state regarding marijuana. The state of California, through ballot initiative and also by legislative process, has come to a conclusion that marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering. She also stated that the state of California police powers have defined criminal law, and perhaps have laws that protect the health, safety, and welfare of their own citizens. Implementing that the Marijuana cultivation of Raich on a local level should be handled on a state level and that it didn’t effect national commerce of Marijuana.

The Concurring Opinion

Justice Stevens, upheld the previous case precedent. However, strongly noted the other avenue of relief. It is implemented in his opinion about the CSA in which classified Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug. Under the current CSA law, it makes Marijuana illegal, specifically pertaining to the ʻcommerce clauseʻ. However he also stated that the case may point to a reclassification of such Schedule 1 drug list under the ʻcommerce clauseʻ. That reclassification is a democratic process that may in the future be heard in congress. He then reiterates that marijuana, under the current CSA, is listed under ʻSchedule 1ʻ drugs, and currently supports the petitionors angle in this case.

We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.

Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

- from the opinion by Justice Stevens

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

2 - Issues of the Case

2009-06-11T02:27:00.000-07:00

Commerce Clause – Congress has the some power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes. These Three areas of commerce, a seperat power granted the the US congress. Also known as “Foreign Commerce Clause”, “Interstate Commerce Clause” and “Indian Commerce Clause”. Each refers to different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

Pertaining to this case, it is known that the Commerce Clause has weakened, thus giving Federal government more leeway in regulating and evforcing federal laws within a given state. Gradually accepting that “interstate commerce” can be regulated through the states, to expanding it to include transactions that affect interste commerce, to anything that Congress decides is interstate commerce.

Specifically, this Marijuana case is a “Commerce Clause” case. The decision will have ramifications that extends beyond medical marijuana.

In this case nothing was sold. Raichsʻ activities involving marijuana was in-state(California). There was no activity that was “interstateʻ(state to state) or “commerce”. Her Life depended on the use of marijuana, in which, was recommended by her doctors and allowed by state and local laws. The ruling of the court was to decide whether Raichsʻ medical marijuana was an act of interstate commerce or whether the federal government has to let the states handle medical marijuana.

Furthurmore, the federal government has claimed that as long as the activity is related to any other part of interstate commerce, then congress has the power to determine the bounds of anything pertaining to its discretion. The effect gives congress unlimited power to determine on what degree they may interfere in state law.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

Progress Update - Week 8 EOC

2009-05-28T15:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-28T12:53:00.000-07:00

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

EOC – Week 7 Property rights

2009-05-21T16:09:00.001-07:00

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.

3's

2009-05-21T13:06:00.001-07:00

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

greed is good week 6 EOC

2009-05-14T16:11:00.001-07:00

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.

Bong Hits for Jesus - they assumed, bong=illegal drug use

2009-05-07T15:27:00.000-07:00

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.

crime and tort

2009-04-30T15:51:00.000-07:00

Coriandra, Sara, Christian and Keoni

Sexual harassment
Refer
Fraud
Illegal
gambling
Vandalism
Bribery
Underage driving
Reckless driving
Speeding
Lying under oath
False advertisement
Illegal use of drugs
MonopolyGun use/attempted murder
Embezzlement
Conspiracy
Trespassing
Running from the police
Standing up in the bed of a truck
Driving on the wrong side of the road

What I think of other peoples blog about The Law

2009-04-23T22:32:00.000-07:00

KE0N1 @N6EL MUSIC said...

WOW! I am a believer! most parts of the law is there to protect a certain age. certain group of people. even, certain kind of people. Even laws just for woman. Even laws for just for men. Of course they cater to a certain people. I guess its all a matter of where you are at and does the law affect you? I can see that with the trials that you stated, the laws are corrupt. It not always provide the truth on the subject matter but rather provide LEVERAGE to any parties involved depending on the societies inscentive of the law, the end effect. It provides a starting point for defendant and plantif. A baseline on which we live by. For the most part they are not always corrupt. But I have to agree that some times its just plain wrong. I am one of those who think that laws are made to be broken.

APRIL 23, 2009 10:28 PM

http://websitedivisions.blogspot.com/2009/04/eoc-week-two.html?showComment=1240550880000#c609731639763678073

KE0N1 @N6EL MUSIC said...

I thnk you hit it just right. Law is essential, no matter what side you are on. The law really does not favor any side. I agree that some are unjust and they are usually the ones that are complex. It also helps us display a certain level of honesty to our government. I also agree that it holds us accountable. However, I disagree in that there are people out there that run away from the law. There has been people out there running away from the law ever since there was law. Many people do misconstrue laws and twist them. I am a firmly believe there are laws out there that maybe passed through certain loop holes and it very well may be kept in place to bring balance to a certain mechanism within the system. Laws are very often made with good intention but not always a good inscentive may come out of it.

April 23, 2009 10:08 PM

http://simplytimelessphoto.blogspot.com/2009/04/eoc-week-2-what-i-think-of-law.html#comments

what i think of the law

2009-04-23T21:47:00.001-07:00

What do i thnk of the law

EOC week 2

I think the law is there to govern the lives of people. It has econimical inscentives. It is also there to protect people. They also have loop holes.

Laws govern people in many ways. Take traffic. The law states that you cant drive a vehicle on the I215 faster than 65 miles and hour. You also must STOP when it says you have to stop.

If you violate any of these things in the presence of a law enforcment officer, they have every right to pull you over and write you a ticket. Each traffic ticket that you have recieved requires a fine or if not a fee to pay or some money to be taken from you in one way or the other. In any case, if you get a ticket you are losing money. Money that could have still been your had it not been for the ticket. That money goes towards the same government that formed the law. Hence the Economic Inscentive, for the Government that is.

65 miles an hour on I215 is a speed limit to regulate speeds that are deemed unsafe for regular driver. Driving over the speed limit is considered dangerous and there for a threat to other drivers. Regulating the speed on highway reduces dangerous speeds.

Now coming up to the stop sign and NOT stoping may be dangerous in the same way. In that proceeding without stopping is dangerous going into coming traffic.

In any one of these situations there are loop holes in which you can still violate the law and the law will not persist. If you violate these laws with no law enforcment officer there to witness and/or issue a ticket. The affect is that you are still allowed to commit the violation however you are not getting penalized for it.

What I think of Lawyers

2009-04-09T16:00:00.000-07:00

They exist only to defend whatever side they represent, weather it is plaintiff or defendant. They represent as if their side is the most righteous. It doesn’t seem like they choose to make correct moral ethical judgments at all times. They make money through a percentage, more of inscentive. The Idea of them making money at a non-flat rate and more on the % based may cause improper judgments on their part. It would be interesting to see, in the future, if they will work under the government for a hourly rate no more/less.
Lawyers come in handy for representation on something as minor as a traffic citation that needs to be taken care of in court. For example, if you got a traffic citation in another state and the citation requires you to be present on a certain court date. You may then hire a traffic lawyer to represent you. You would be communicating through the lawyer on the status of your traffic citation. If it wasn’t for the lawyer you would probably have to go back at the latter date to represent yourself.
I don’t think most lawyers make the correct moral judgment at all times. It is to their best interest to make money. And they will work harder for you depending on what their inscentive is rather then helping you on what your real problem is. They are experts in their own field and may keep the truth away from their clients depending on what their end compensation will be. They are not always truthful and honest on a situation. They are also highly persuasive because they know how the system works and it is to their own advantage to yield more money off a particular case. I strongly think they may work differently if they worked for you for a flat rate.