Someone needs to explain to the author of this article that the fact that the federal supreme court didn't hear this issue means it does not at this time express any opinion - not that it approves the 9th's decision on doctors discussing marijuana as an option. After all, you can only overturn so many of the 9th's decisions each year. There are a few other jurisdictions out there trying to get the Justices to hear their cases too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 whe... -
This month's edition of The National magazine ( National (English) - October/November 2010 ) has a significant multi-page article on pri... -
After a very long hiatus, I've been reinfected with the photography bug thanks to acquiring a new digital SLR (some of my recent work i...
-
New York City has lowest crime rate . Good, now maybe I can finally get somebody to buy that bridge I purchased last year.
-
Apparently both the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and Facebook intend to hold separate press conferences tomorrow to discuss the outcome of...
-
Every time I get on Facebook it tries to set me up with someone. Now, not to be too cynical about things, but girls who looked like that wer... -
You too can be a Virginia State Trooper: You get a cool vehicle assigned to you (only the Virginian ones at the beginning). You get to dodge...
-
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting Op/Ed on privacy, highlighting contemporary expectations of privacy. Information Age ...
-
Following in the footsteps of British Columbia and Alberta, bar owners in Halifax are talking about rolling out a "Bar Watch" prog...
-
In the "Street View" lawsuit with the Borings (see: Boring lawsuit over Google's "Street View" ), Google has filed a...