Lawmakers legalize low-THC marijuana

[quote=scapegoat]

Apparently, you have problems with reading and comprehension.

He read it just fine. To help you in your understanding, here is a snippit from the Florida Supreme Court, along with a link so you can corroborate it:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_ ... 3-2006.pdf[/url]

The Supreme Court did not mince words with smoke, mirrors, lies and scare tactics. Instead, the Court stuck to the facts.[/quote:11elmhji]
Exactly makes the Florida Supreme Justices qualifed to render their opinons? First you said that we should listen to the will of the people and now you are suggesting that the Supreme Court should be trusted.

Summary

You do not need to have one of the Specific Medical Conditions listed in Statute to be considered a qualified medical marijuana patient. The General Diseases , Medical Conditions, and treatments not listed but authorized in the Statute includes the treatment of any chronic or debilitating medical condition, or the medication, therapy, or any other treatment option prescribed by your primary physician to treat that condition. An example would be if you suffer from depression and your physician prescribes a medication to treat the depression, if that medication causes muscle aches and spasms, or it makes you nauseous, then you would qualify as a patient with a listed condition (muscle spasms or nausea) to choose medical marijuana as a treatment option. To find out if your condition applies, contact the THCF Clinic.

It's the opinion of some legel scholars that the Affirmative Defense provides greater patient protection than the Act itself. Contact Untitled Document for legal interpretations.

My 14 year old brother and 13 year old cousin can't wait for this to pass. They are both "depressed". Hahahahahaha......

Medical Marijuana is only the first step.

Medical Marijuana is only the first step.

http://norml.org/

[Jackass]

Exactly makes the Florida Supreme Justices qualifed to render their opinons? First you said that we should listen to the will of the people and now you are suggesting that the Supreme Court should be trusted.

The Florida Supreme Court cannot be trusted, any more than the local SAO. Both make a mockery of justice. How many nolle prosses do you see for rock solid sig 57 cases and for domestic battery arrests? Does anything more need to be said to prove this argument? If the Supreme Court says that the people have a right to vote for legalized medical pot, then this state is going in the wrong direct. The people should NOT have a right to vote for medical pot. :roll:

And if the citizens do get a chance to vote for medical pot this November, their will should be completely ignored because they will always make the wrong choice. As proof: They voted for Knight. And now all the polls indicate that they will vote for legalized pot. Idiots. Does anything more need to be said about the will (or judgement) of the people?

PUFF PUFF GIVE, PUFF PUFF GIVE, DANG NI^&* DONT FUK UP THE ROTATION !!!!!

Medical Marijuana is only the first step.

http://norml.org/

Here is a snippit from the Florida Supreme Court, along with a link so you can corroborate it:

We conclude that the proposed amendment embraces a single subject, which is the medical use of marijuana. We hold that the voters are given fair notice as to the chief purpose and scope of the proposed amendment, which is to allow a restricted use of marijuana for certain debilitating medical conditions. We conclude that the voters will not be affirmatively misled regarding the purpose of the proposed amendment because the ballot title and summary accurately convey the limited use of marijuana, as determined by a licensed Florida physician. (page 2)

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_ ... 3-2006.pdf

The Supreme Court did not mince words with smoke, mirrors, lies and scare tactics. Instead, the Court stuck to the facts.

Are you serious? Are you really going to bring facts to this discussion? What do facts from the Florida Supreme Court have to do with the issue of legalized medical marijuana?

[Jackass]

A democracy will only work on a moral people and if the citizens vote for medical pot, then they effectively forfeit their right to govern themselves.

Cecily McMillan, the last and most famous of the Wall Street Occupiers, was found guilty Monday of assaulting a New York City cop during a peaceful protest four months after the initial OWS encampment had been disbanded. McMillan was deemed guilty of felony assault against Officer Grantley Bovell, who himself has a long history of misconduct while wearing the uniform of “New York's finest.”
The circumstances of both McMillan's arrest and trial reveal (for those who continue to doubt it) that this nation-state really is a bona fide police state in that police violence against peaceful citizens has been normalized, even expected by great masses of Americans.
The court which convicted McMillan has validated this militarization of police and their accompanying violence, and stands ready to issue a grossly disproportionate prison sentence against her. McMillan faces up to seven years in prison; and if her trial is any indication of the sentencing judge's sentiments, she will be forced to serve every single day and night of those seven years.
For black and brown people in New York City, this kind of treatment at the hands of the police and the courts is nothing new or even particularly remarkable. But for those who are not brown or black, this should serve as an object lesson as to what to expect when one objects just a little too strenuously to the status quo. You will be met with an unrestrained massive police force which cares not one whit whether you are within your “rights” to be doing or saying whatever it is that you are doing or saying.
McMillan was among about 70 protesters on March 17, 2012, in New York's Zuccotti Park where they gathered to mark the six-month anniversary of the original Occupy Wall Street. That protest had been broken up four months earlier by a massive and violent police response that included dozens of arrests.
On March 17, St. Patrick's Day, police formed a military-style phalanx with batons at-the-ready position, and moved into the park that night. Chaos erupted almost immediately.
Officer Bovell claimed that McMillan elbowed him in the face as he attempted to arrest her. McMillan and her defense team claim that Bovell grabbed her right breast from behind, causing her to react instinctively.
After being wrestled to the ground by Bovell, other cops gathered around the fallen woman and began cursing and kicking and stomping her. She suffered cracked ribs, bruises, and a series of seizures before these same police deigned to put her in an ambulance.
All of this was photographed and filmed by bystanders and other protesters.
But the jury neither heard nor saw anything about the police violence that took place in Zuccotti Park that night.
Nor did the jury hear about the original police violence employed in evicting OWS on November 15, 2011.
That is to say that all of the violence visited upon the Occupy protesters by the police throughout its entirety was excluded from the courtroom.
Why? Because, amazingly, Judge Ronald Zweibel consistently ruled that any larger context as to what was going on around McMillan at the time of her arrest – including Bovell's own history of violence – had nothing whatever to do with the McMillan's trial for assaulting Bovell.
During the trial, physical evidence presented by McMillan was considered suspect but police testimony was treated as sent from on high. Prosecutors apparently successfully convinced the jury that photographs of her bruised body, including her right breast, showed injuries sustained before rather than during her arrest.
Yet Bovell repeatedly identified the wrong eye as he described the injuries that McMillan inflicted upon him.
Thus, the jury came to accept and believe that the hundreds of police batons, helmets, fists, guns, and flex cuffs used to subdue the protesters were no match for McMillan's elbow.
The jury, therefore, saw the nonviolent protesters as destructive, chaotic and violent -- not the police. McMillan was tried and convicted of assaulting the police, but their documented actions against her and her friends were never even up for questioning.
That's right. This latest and modern-day travesty of justice occurred despite the thousands of photographs and videos showing that protesters, journalists and legal observers, and innocent bystanders alike -- all were all pushed, punched, pummeled, kicked, tackled, and beaten about the body and head -- especially the head.
(Just as was chanted 46 years ago during the 1968 Democratic Party Convention in Chicago when the prototype of a "police riot" against youthful demonstrators occurred: "The whole world is watching!" -- just as back then, even though the world witnessed live and in color the whole violent police rampage, nothing ever happened to those cops, and nothing will happen to this 2014 iteration of "servers and protectors").
The mindset that the police can do no wrong was evident early on in McMillan's trial. Beginning with the jury selection process, her attorneys had to summarily dismiss potential juror after potential juror because of outright and open bias against the Occupy movement and its participants.
This is the mindset now in this country. This is the mindset that does not allow folks to ever even suspect that the police might be wrong -- about anything. Thus, when cops brutalize and murder those they are sworn to protect, a vast number of citizens rationalize those acts as "necessary" or "justified," if only because..."well, they must've been doing something wrong to provoke the cops like that." These were basically "middle class" white kids -- nonviolent white kids -- who were treated this way, just like blacks and browns have always been treated.
Meanwhile, out in very appropriately named Bunkerville in Nevada, the beat goes on, but no police beatings. No police beatings of hundreds of armed and dangerous right wingers who continue to surround, to "serve and protect" Cliven Bundy. These folk have sworn to violently resist any attempts to simply enforce the law. These people, amazingly, remain unmolested by any "law enforcement" entities whatsoever.
Welcome to the club, Cecily.