But if someone else said it was a waste of a bid, that's ok? It's true, I don't know their MS, but I guess I just wouldn't like anyone being an absolute ass while representing my GLO.

I said it. And I stand by it. It's a shame the OP has so little respect for her organization.

And I completely agree.

As sad as it is to see the OP disrespecting her GLO like this... This entire thread made me laugh. And since I'm home sick, I needed a laugh. So mission kind of accomplished?

Yeah, to clarify: while it is theoretically possible to get arrested in northern California for having weed, in practice, the chances are so small that the risk is negligible. Even in the extremely rare chance that you're nabbed, it's very similar to a speeding ticket.

Enough people have the card that the police usually don't check. In fact, there are several people who openly toke in public. I have never seen the police do anything with them, even though the entire street reeks of that stuff. This is probably because any non-federal police force open themselves up to liability if they try to enforce federal laws that are in conflict with California law. Feds usually investigate specific cases rather than just patrol around.

Furthermore, according to some people I know who are careless enough to actually get detained, the usual procedure here is that the police will single out the provider. If the provider has the card, nothing happens to them; if not, then it's a speeding-ticket-equivalent type of thing.

Everybody is more concerned about being caught providing alcohol to minors than possession/usage of weed. The risk is approximately the same, and the usual punishment for providing alcohol to minors is significantly higher.

Finally, as for legality: federal law superseding California law in that aspect is actually debatable. I can envision a significant Supreme Court case around the 9th amendment sometime in the future. Question is, if you're in California, who'd care enough to fight it if it technically isn't even a "crime"?

Well, with this sort of blatant abuse of medical marijuana in CA it's only a matter of time before the Federal Gov steps in. It sucks for the FEW that actually need/benefit from it.

Gotta agree on that. That's why a lot of drugs were criminalized to begin with.

I loved the Law & Order episode where Van Buren was smoking because her chemo killed her appetite and her chief yelled at her - then he pulled her into his office and gave her the name of a discreet seller and told her to take a shower after smoking up the next time she did it. :)

I don't think it's that debatable, really. Article VI (Clause 2) of the United States Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding

Likewise, Article 3, section 1, of the California Constitution says:

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Nor do I think there's a real Ninth Amendment issue. In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), SCOTUS held (6-3) that the federal government may criminalize the cultivation and private use of cannabis for medicinal purposes even though state law (California) permits such private cultivation and use. Although the opinion does not mention (I don't think) the Ninth Amendment, it makes clear that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the growth and use of cannabis. That being the case, the Supremacy Clause means federal law will trump state law.

*sound of gavel*

thank you, MysticCat.

(I couldn't see a Ninth Amendment argument in this mess, myself. It appeared black and white to me.)

Isn't the 9th amendment about the right to privacy? I could see there maybe being an argument that if it is declared a medicinal drug, it being put in the same league as other prescription drugs, which would make it impossible to out a person for using it. However I'm obviously not a lawyer and it obviously isn't legalized federally, so this should not even be an issue, really. It's pretty clear cut.

Not exactly, though SCOTUS has found a "penumbra" of a right to privacy to exist in the Ninth Amendment, which simply says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The "penumbra" concept, which has lots of critics, has been applied mainly in matters related to the bedroom or the consequences of what happens in the bedroom.

Interesting. Has it ever been applied to the idea of medical privacy? Or doctor-patient confidentiality?

If this person truly is a Cali Tri Sigma, I will find out exactly who she is :)

That campus is waaay to small to not know who she is.

My call. Northeastern in Boston bc of the NE.
There for a co-op (required at NE)
Just a guess, since I'm not one of the GC super-sleuths. I have friends there and an old roommate who could probably find something like this out.

I must start by saying that I RARELY comment. That being said I will say that I only am commenting because this poster is SO F'N STUPID THAT I COULDN'T HELP MYSELF!!!

Over this thread I've noticed that the OP has been thought to be from California. I ignored the fact that they only said they worked out there for a few months and that in their jurisdiction it wouldn't be an issue, PLUS the user name has "NE" telling me many things. They aren't from Cali, but worked there for a few months and are from somewhere in the North East.

I left this alone until THE FLIPPING IDIOT confirmed this fact =o If I were some mornon who posted on a public forum with my sorority letters who discussed the fact that I LOVE smoking pot, I might want to be careful. OHHHH NOOOOOO. This idiot cames back and confirms that they aren't from Cali but the east coast. Genius! Seriously, genious =s

Ugh...what a flippin' moron!

BTW Tri-Sig isn't as big as some other NPC sororities so I'm SURE that one call or email could set a chain reaction into motion. There aren't THAT many NE schools with tri sig chapters so how hard do you think it would be for Nationals to set an investigation into motion?

I'll just say it straight out. Not only are you an idiot for thinking it's "cute" "funny" "personal" or whatever else for spending money on this f'n idiotic shirt that you want, but you have embarassed Tri-Sig!!! Seriously, you have now just irked me. Please grow up, get a life, and get off GC!

That's what I thought too.

Tell your roomie to get on it. :)

This thread is still open? Wow...

Off the top of my head I can't recall. If I get a chance, I'll look into it.

But even if it has, I'm not at all sure the Court would go so far as to say it protects a right to use a drug that the federal government has criminalized.

Americans for Safe Access claims that HIPAA protects medical marijuana use, but they also spell it HIPPA so...

I always lol when people do that. Hippos on the brain no doubt. :)

HIPAA doesn't protect the use of it (or anything else) as a concept, all it does is makes sure your employer doesn't know what you're taking and why.

Doesn't HIPAA also affect precisely how the doctor handles your medical records? I'm not saying it protects the right to use per se, but the right to privacy for the treatment/care you receive from a doctor seems like it would include prescription THC.

/THC is so much easier to type than marijuana.

Really? I don't mind typing either, in fact, I kind of like typing the other word. The dots aligning looks interesting to me. Not sure why.

Back on topic, that's what I meant when I was wondering about the 9th amendment protecting doctor-patient confidentiality. If the doctor does prescribe it than what could your employer do? Obviously again this would be if it became federally legal and not just by state but it is an interesting concept.

I type THC/COC/OPI a lot for work. 3 letter abbreviations make me happy. Clients who use drugs do not.

Yeah my oh so cursory google search led me to no help, but maybe MC will turn up with something. I wonder if it's likely that it just hasn't come up at this point.

Yes. That too. In other words if your lazy ass husband is having a problem with his medication you can't call the doctor and talk to him about it, lazy ass has to do it himself. :) Unfortunately all this stuff is pretty much shutting the barn door after the horse is out and several countries away.

Is this the blurb on the ASA (lol) site you were talking about?

That's just....odd. I mean the concept of the card with the photo being "confidential." The pharmacist doesn't give a shit what you're taking (other than interactions). I guess they're afraid of people breaking into pharmacies or something.

On another note: Someone explain how marijuana helps anorexia. Yes you might get the munchies more, but if you're a full blown anorexic, fighting the super-munchies and winning will give you even more of a feeling of accomplishment, taking you even deeper into the disease.

Yeah I want to hear the explanation for that, too. I think you hit the nail on the head...it could make the situation even worse.

"Anorexia", by itself, just means lack of appetite, which is common with many medications and serious diseases. No matter how much the person knows they have to eat, they find it difficult to do so and drop weight rapidly. They may attempt to force food down and find themselves unable to do so.

What you are referring to is anorexia nervosa, which marijuana likely wouldn't help for the reasons you listed.

My bad. They do say just "anorexia" on their site - however, I really wonder why they would want to use that term since a lot of people reading it may assume the same thing I did.

The thing is the Ninth Amendment doesn't really confer any rights, the privacy decisions notwithstanding. The prevailing interpretation of it is this: The listing of rights in the Bill of Rights is not intended to be exclusive, so the government can't deny someone a particular right solely on the grounds that the right is not listed in the Bill of Rights. But if the Constitution grants the government the power to do something and the government acts within that authority, then one cannot claim under the Ninth Amendment that one's "unenumerated" (not listed) rights have been violated.

SInce SCOTUS has held that Congress has the power to classify certain drugs and substances and to regulate if and how they may be manufactured, possessed and distributed, I have a really hard time imagining that a successful Ninth Amendment claim could be made.

They should probably clarify it because I do think most people would assume that's what they mean by anorexia. Maybe they just want to sound more medical, and hope that makes them look more reputable???

True. I haven't looked at the website, but (generally) if a site is for a "lay person" it's preferable to use common lingo, so mix-ups don't happen... like confusion over how anorexia nervosa is treated with marijuana. You want to avoid as much confusion as possible.

You're still annoying lol

I haven't looked at the website either and you bring up a good point. Even something like "Anorexia - Appetite" or something that distinguishes the difference is preferred.

Well if it is so important to you, maybe you should learn how to spell it.

OP is proof that smoking pot is bad for you and causes brain damage. Troll.

A worthy bump.