I've searched and searched for this group, I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Even if I believed this person was legit (which, FTR, I don't), this is a ridiculous statement. You don't knowc their MS procedures and standards. Yes, this troll is certainly an embarrassment to the org they are claiming (or at least not denying) membership in, but I wouldn't go as far as insulting their MS.

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

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.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

[FleurGirl]

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?

[excelblue]

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"?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by excelblue

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by excelblue

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"?

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.

[AZTheta]

*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.)

[psusue]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

*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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by psusue

Isn't the 9th amendment about the right to privacy?

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.

[psusue]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And seeing how her sorority's website lists only one chapter in California . . . .

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.

[nittanygirl]

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.

[rebelgirl]

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!