The government proffered several analogies to founding era laws in support of the ban. All were rejected by the court.

My favorite rejection was the government's contention that weed users are like "dangerous lunatics" whose rights can be restricted in the name of public safety. The judge responded: "The mere use of marijuana does not indicate that someone is in fact dangerous, let alone analogous to a 'dangerous lunatic,'" Wyrick notes. "There are likely nearly 400,000 Oklahomans who use marijuana under state-law authorization. Lumping all those persons into a category with 'dangerous lunatics,' as the United States' theory requires, is a bridge too far."

#3 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

I grew up in Lamar County on the Red River boundary. I've spent a lot of time in SE and Central Oklahoma, a lot.

I was shocked when they legalized Med MJ. I dream that Texas will one day be so progressive.

... since I was 21 (the 26th Amendment was passed three-years later) and have voted in virtually every election since then.

I turned 18 in September and bought my first legal beer on that day. I voted in November and pretty have done so ever since.

Sounds like someone has watched 'Reefer Madness' a bit too often:

Kinda my take, the government's lawyers weren't the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

The footnote? The pos troll fails again. The charge requires conviction. The government's lawyer's again failed at their burden of proof. Shame.

So just who is "the government" in this case ...