<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Federalism and Medical Marijuana: A Match Made in Confusion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://demockracy.com/federalism-and-medical-marijuana-a-match-made-in-confusion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://demockracy.com/federalism-and-medical-marijuana-a-match-made-in-confusion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 03:56:19 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Carl Olsen</title>
		<link>http://demockracy.com/federalism-and-medical-marijuana-a-match-made-in-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1388</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Olsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://demockracy.com/?p=3644#comment-1388</guid>
		<description>The Supreme Court declined to consider both San Diego and Garden Grove.  I disagree with your position that the Supreme Court would have overturned either of those cases if it had considered them.  Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) is the case you should be looking at.  It defines &quot;federalism&quot; in regard to the drug laws in fine detail.  States rule!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court declined to consider both San Diego and Garden Grove.  I disagree with your position that the Supreme Court would have overturned either of those cases if it had considered them.  Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) is the case you should be looking at.  It defines &#8220;federalism&#8221; in regard to the drug laws in fine detail.  States rule!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

