Supreme Court says No to Medical Weed... - GoFuckYourself.com

Wizzo · 06-06-2005, 07:47 AM

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

sickkittens · 06-06-2005, 07:48 AM

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=477301

wallst · 06-06-2005, 07:52 AM

strike one for medical marijuana

Wizzo · 06-06-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallst

strike one for medical marijuana

Supreme Court = Strike three...

I'm thinking they have to start at the bottom again...

FilthyRob · 06-06-2005, 07:56 AM

what a bunch of bullshit

xXxtreme2005 · 06-06-2005, 08:03 AM

it helps a friend with his MS alot

Pornopat · 06-06-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xXxtreme2005

it helps a friend with his MS alot

Same for a friend of mine.
The supreme court must be really narrowminded....

ezrydn · 06-06-2005, 08:08 AM

If you thought the "War on Drugs" was bad before, just wait. This decision has given the government "cart blanche" to overrun your homes. States Rights is now a moot subject as it is now practically non-existent, through this ruling. This is one decision, folks, you HAVE to read, word for word!

Rheinquist will leave the court without a legacy now. Or, at the least, he'll leave with the destruction of States Rights, as we've known them. Smooth move, Bill!

wallst · 06-06-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

Supreme Court = Strike three...

I'm thinking they have to start at the bottom again...

yeah, cant argue with you there. but do you ever think its just going to go away? i dont think so.

RoeVWade received its ruling years ago, and still its an issue that could easily return again within the supreme court system.

TheWylders · 06-06-2005, 08:16 AM

This administration isn't going to be happy till we're all carrying bibles in one hand and a copy of the 10 commandments in the other. Fucking ridiculous!!

NTSS · 06-06-2005, 08:17 AM

Hell I thought it was already legal

sextoyking · 06-06-2005, 08:18 AM

It surprised me that Justice Stevens wrote the opinion and that it was 6-3

Tango · 06-06-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sextoyking

It surprised me that Justice Stevens wrote the opinion and that it was 6-3

again it looks like the government lost their way and is focusing on the wrong shit again

mardigras · 06-06-2005, 08:27 AM

Today's decision doesn't actually change any laws. It just says that states may have their laws allowing it but the feds can still arrest anyone they want despite the state laws.

Wizzo · 06-06-2005, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheWylders

This administration isn't going to be happy till we're all carrying bibles in one hand and a copy of the 10 commandments in the other. Fucking ridiculous!!

I think this is bigger than the current admin... In fact, last I checked No supreme court judges have been appointed by this admin...

I'm not defending the current admin, but its a bigger enemy than you think, if you choose to only believe it's only the current admin that is the problem and wants to control your personal liberties...

Roald · 06-06-2005, 08:30 AM

what are you talking about? its legal over here ;))))

BVF · 06-06-2005, 08:31 AM

When I had Malaria in Africa, Marijuana saved my ass.

directfiesta · 06-06-2005, 08:36 AM

will be legal when

is the one selling it.

Note to marijuana growers: give political contribution to GOP next time.

wallst · 06-06-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

will be legal when

is the one selling it.

Note to marijuana growers: give political contribution to GOP next time.

how true indeed.

SuckOnThis · 06-06-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

I think this is bigger than the current admin... In fact, last I checked No supreme court judges have been appointed by this admin...

I'm not defending the current admin, but its a bigger enemy than you think, if you choose to only believe it's only the current admin that is the problem and wants to control your personal liberties...

It was the Bush admin that appealed it to the supreme court though. This once again shows these fucking conservatives could give a shit what the majority wants and is only interested in its own agenda.

wallst · 06-06-2005, 09:00 AM

all this talk about weed makes me want to get high...

HarrytheNazi · 06-06-2005, 09:19 AM

bullshit

NoHassleSteve · 06-06-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezrydn

If you thought the "War on Drugs" was bad before, just wait. This decision has given the government "cart blanche" to overrun your homes. States Rights is now a moot subject as it is now practically non-existent, through this ruling. This is one decision, folks, you HAVE to read, word for word!

Rheinquist will leave the court without a legacy now. Or, at the least, he'll leave with the destruction of States Rights, as we've known them. Smooth move, Bill!

FYI, If CNN is to be believed:

"Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented."

So that means the justices nominated by Democrats all voted to let
the feds prosecute medical marijuana users, and the Republican
apointees were split. This issue is a mix of drug policy and states rights
so that why the split was such an odd one: each judge had to decide
which was more important.

Morgan · 06-06-2005, 09:44 AM

what's the date on that article.. can you post a link to it?

sounds old like old news....

Wizzo · 06-06-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganjasaurus

what's the date on that article.. can you post a link to it?

sounds old like old news....

It was today 6/6, go to any of the wire services and it's the top story...

TheWylders · 06-06-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

I think this is bigger than the current admin... In fact, last I checked No supreme court judges have been appointed by this admin...

I'm not defending the current admin, but its a bigger enemy than you think, if you choose to only believe it's only the current admin that is the problem and wants to control your personal liberties...

I agree with your statement, but I was referring to the administration being responsible for appealing it to the supreme court. But you are very right, the problem is deeper than just the current administration, and it just keeps getting worse.

Quickdraw · 06-06-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

will be legal when

is the one selling it.

Note to marijuana growers: give political contribution to GOP next time.

I was just going to say that the pharma companies give too much money to the government for them to let a natural alternative in to compete.
You beat me

taibo · 06-06-2005, 09:53 AM

that's soo much bullshit

UniversalPass Pete · 06-06-2005, 09:55 AM

The abusers fuck it up for everyone else! What else it new!

MandyBlake · 06-06-2005, 09:57 AM

everything should be made legal.

VeriSexy · 06-06-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FilthyRob

what a bunch of bullshit

I agree, Weed is gods gift!!!!

simple simon · 06-06-2005, 10:03 AM

see sig, losers

tranza · 06-06-2005, 10:06 AM

That's fucked up...

eamedia · 06-06-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simple simon

see sig, losers

VirtuMike · 06-06-2005, 10:48 AM

Maybe if the lawyers weren't stoned it would have turned out differently.

GatorB · 06-06-2005, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simple simon

see sig, losers

What does this have to do with being democrat or republican?

Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California

Last time I checked states like Alaska and Montana are nortoriously republican. In fact at least half these states have republican governors.

Mr.Fiction · 06-06-2005, 11:56 AM

The Bush administration doesn't support state's rights.

Just like when they took the 2000 election to the federal courts.

BukkakeBrown · 06-06-2005, 11:59 AM

another reason to move to canada

ezrydn · 06-06-2005, 12:27 PM

Sorry,

It was my mistake to say Justice Rheinquist opposed. He WAS with the Dessenting faction.

You can read everything here:

Opinion of the Court - Decision - Justice Stevens

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZO.pdf

Concurring Opinion - Justice Scalia

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZC.pdf

Minority Dessenting Opinion - Justice O'Connor

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf

Separate Dessent - Justice Thomas

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf

In the "Adult" business, you should pay close attention to the Dessent written by Justice O'Connor. She brings up a legitimate point of "what personal activity now is OUTSIDE the reach of Congress?" The answer, none, as of today. That includes you, your business and your computer, to say the least.

Morgan · 06-06-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

It was today 6/6, go to any of the wire services and it's the top story...

bummer...

Morgan · 06-06-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

What does this have to do with being democrat or republican?

Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California

Last time I checked states like Alaska and Montana are nortoriously republican. In fact at least half these states have republican governors.

he's a republican... most weed smokers i would say are democrats.. probably 70/30 imo.

MetaMan · 06-06-2005, 12:31 PM

dam that really sucks for alot of americans, i agree with the medicinal purposes for medical weed, and only a bunch of religious idiots would ever try to take it away from people who suffer from chronic pain and others who are dying.

really crazy how the USA is when it comes to drugs, i mean here in Calgary although its not legal you can roll down the street and spark a joint at a light and people will look over and laugh.

weed does not kill!

SuckOnThis · 06-06-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simple simon

see sig, losers

Says the ignorant drunken faggot.

$5 submissions · 06-06-2005, 03:27 PM

So much for Federalism.... The Court has been gradually moving on expanding state's rights in regards to interstate commerce since the Lopez decision of the mid-90s. This is definitely a step back and a reaffirmation of the 1930's and 1940's style Big Government (read: Federal government) powers.

xlogger · 06-06-2005, 03:31 PM

noooooooooooooooo .. weed rules

reynold · 06-06-2005, 10:43 PM

Supreme court expects for better packaging and marketing where the Government could earn enough money from it.LOL

06-06-2005, 07:47 AM	#1
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	Supreme Court says No to Medical Weed... WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California. In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses. In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates. The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use." The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities. Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard. __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

06-06-2005, 07:48 AM	#2
sickkittens I am a meat popsicle. Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,100	http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=477301 __________________ HIGHEST PAYOUTS FOR NO-CONSOLE TOURS IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY! THIS SIG CAN BE YOURS FOR $200 - ICQ: 78881543

06-06-2005, 07:52 AM	#3
wallst Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: South East Posts: 1,621	strike one for medical marijuana __________________ Earl Miller Cash 20th Congress

06-06-2005, 07:56 AM	#5
FilthyRob Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Anaheim - CA Posts: 6,741	what a bunch of bullshit __________________ AKA - Clubsexy

06-06-2005, 08:03 AM	#6
xXxtreme2005 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: st louis/IL metro area Posts: 717	it helps a friend with his MS alot __________________ GOT TRAFFIC?.......I BUY TRAFFIC ICQ 318-368-640

06-06-2005, 08:08 AM	#8
ezrydn Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Guadalajara, MX Posts: 695	If you thought the "War on Drugs" was bad before, just wait. This decision has given the government "cart blanche" to overrun your homes. States Rights is now a moot subject as it is now practically non-existent, through this ruling. This is one decision, folks, you HAVE to read, word for word! Rheinquist will leave the court without a legacy now. Or, at the least, he'll leave with the destruction of States Rights, as we've known them. Smooth move, Bill!

06-06-2005, 08:16 AM	#10
TheWylders Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 623	This administration isn't going to be happy till we're all carrying bibles in one hand and a copy of the 10 commandments in the other. Fucking ridiculous!!

06-06-2005, 08:17 AM	#11
NTSS Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Da Hood Posts: 5,688	Hell I thought it was already legal __________________ ICQ: 150-803-430 Email: marketing7(at)cox(dot)net

06-06-2005, 08:18 AM	#12
sextoyking Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portland, OR. Posts: 6,034	It surprised me that Justice Stevens wrote the opinion and that it was 6-3 __________________ ICQ: 52344098 -------------------------------------- 50% Commissions on all Product Sales. http://www.wishing.com/money

06-06-2005, 08:27 AM	#14
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Today's decision doesn't actually change any laws. It just says that states may have their laws allowing it but the feds can still arrest anyone they want despite the state laws. __________________ . Last edited by mardigras; 06-06-2005 at 08:30 AM..

06-06-2005, 08:30 AM	#16
Roald SecretFriends.com Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: IMC Headquarters Posts: 27,888	what are you talking about? its legal over here ;)))) __________________ WE ARE BUYING PAY SITES! CONTACT ME ClubSweethearts \| ManUpFilms \| SinfulXXX \| HOT * AdultPrime * HOT Paying webmasters since 1996! Contact: r.riepen @ sansylgroup.com \| telegram: roaldr

06-06-2005, 08:31 AM	#17
BVF Black Vagina Finder Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Midwest Posts: 13,975	When I had Malaria in Africa, Marijuana saved my ass. __________________ Black Pussy Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!!

06-06-2005, 08:36 AM	#18
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,680	will be legal when is the one selling it. Note to marijuana growers: give political contribution to GOP next time. __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

06-06-2005, 09:00 AM	#21
wallst Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: South East Posts: 1,621	all this talk about weed makes me want to get high... __________________ Earl Miller Cash 20th Congress

06-06-2005, 09:19 AM	#22
HarrytheNazi Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,164	bullshit

06-06-2005, 09:44 AM	#24
Morgan Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Corona Del Mar, CA Posts: 10,520	what's the date on that article.. can you post a link to it? sounds old like old news.... __________________ PornstarPlatinum.com \| TransErotica.com

06-06-2005, 09:53 AM	#28
taibo Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 3,720	that's soo much bullshit

06-06-2005, 09:55 AM	#29
UniversalPass Pete Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA http://www.universalpass.com Posts: 7,368	The abusers fuck it up for everyone else! What else it new! __________________ V4.0 It's Here! NOT JUST AVS ANYMORE! Teen Whore Fetish All Milf Sluts Real Asian Cunts All Latina Cunts Massive XXX Boobs All Out Anal Since 1997. ICQ: 107746038

06-06-2005, 09:57 AM	#30
MandyBlake The one and only! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 17,761	everything should be made legal. __________________ Mandy's Playhouse Her First Fat Girl If you're interested in promoting my sites, ICQ me! 178411921

06-06-2005, 10:03 AM	#32
simple simon Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 854	see sig, losers __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Let me repeat... A 120 x 60 button and no more that 3 lines of DEFAULT SIZE AND COLOR text.

06-06-2005, 10:06 AM	#33
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	That's fucked up... __________________ I'm just a newbie.

06-06-2005, 10:48 AM	#35
VirtuMike Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Seat 1A Posts: 2,483	Maybe if the lawyers weren't stoned it would have turned out differently. __________________ Host it in AMSTERDAM at EUROTIVITY! - We also offer BACKUP SERVICES! XYZZY4L

06-06-2005, 11:56 AM	#37
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	The Bush administration doesn't support state's rights. Just like when they took the 2000 election to the federal courts. __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

06-06-2005, 11:59 AM	#38
BukkakeBrown Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Florida Posts: 734	another reason to move to canada __________________ We are the only "Napster of Porn" and we convert at 1:20 Test out promoting us to your mainstream, adult and email traffic, you will love promoting us!

06-06-2005, 12:27 PM	#39
ezrydn Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Guadalajara, MX Posts: 695	Sorry, It was my mistake to say Justice Rheinquist opposed. He WAS with the Dessenting faction. You can read everything here: Opinion of the Court - Decision - Justice Stevens http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZO.pdf Concurring Opinion - Justice Scalia http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZC.pdf Minority Dessenting Opinion - Justice O'Connor http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf Separate Dessent - Justice Thomas http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf In the "Adult" business, you should pay close attention to the Dessent written by Justice O'Connor. She brings up a legitimate point of "what personal activity now is OUTSIDE the reach of Congress?" The answer, none, as of today. That includes you, your business and your computer, to say the least.

06-06-2005, 12:31 PM	#42
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	dam that really sucks for alot of americans, i agree with the medicinal purposes for medical weed, and only a bunch of religious idiots would ever try to take it away from people who suffer from chronic pain and others who are dying. really crazy how the USA is when it comes to drugs, i mean here in Calgary although its not legal you can roll down the street and spark a joint at a light and people will look over and laugh. weed does not kill!

06-06-2005, 03:27 PM	#44
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	So much for Federalism.... The Court has been gradually moving on expanding state's rights in regards to interstate commerce since the Lopez decision of the mid-90s. This is definitely a step back and a reaffirmation of the 1930's and 1940's style Big Government (read: Federal government) powers. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

06-06-2005, 03:31 PM	#45
xlogger Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: NY Posts: 9,507	noooooooooooooooo .. weed rules __________________ ---------- XLOGGER [REFLECTED] [OH]

06-06-2005, 10:43 PM	#46
reynold Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Global Traveler Posts: 51,271	Supreme court expects for better packaging and marketing where the Government could earn enough money from it.LOL