2
   

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 09:32 am
Quote:


Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 10:40 AM EDT (1440 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.




http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html

The sick and in pain lose another one to the compassionate one
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,556 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 09:35 am
Seems like 6 compassionate one to me.

This is something the legislative branch should be fixing. States rights shouldn't be hindered in these cases, but to blame the judicial or executive branches somehow seems silly in this case.

It's a legislative issue.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 09:55 am
McGentrix

Who brought the appeal to the Supreme Court. The same miscreant that put the crimp in the fetal stem cell research.
I guess one needs to be brain dead to evoke compassion from this administration and it's allies.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 09:59 am
Who put the law into effect? Why would you be so decidingly angry that the law is being upheld? Heck, I wish all laws were upheld the same way.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:04 am
Rolling Eyes

I can't decide if this is a setback or a move forward for Legalizing da dope.

Of course, it would seem to be a step backwards; but, does anyone remember the raids on sick and elderly people in Cali. who actually use and grow the stuff?

The media attention was big, with nice large pictures of bed-ridden cancer patients being held at gunpoint. A little more of that and we might have the whole thing legalized.

Cycloptichorn

(god, this is retarded)
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:25 am
Bush and the republicans in congress march to their own drummer. The suffering of people are of no concern to them. Except when it serves their purpose.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:26 am
So they repealed the Commerce Clause ... again. I would get angry, but I'm so frustrated about this that I lack the energy at the moment. Murphy bless Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist for sticking to their principles. And shame on Scalia for participating in this umpteenth super-stretching of the already-stretched clause. What a scam!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:28 am
If you figure out why the drug companies can't profit from legal marijuana, then you'll know why their bought and paid for president and other politicians are fighting to keep it illegal.

Maybe the CIA really does finance themselves from the sale of illegal drugs.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:41 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
If you figure out why the drug companies can't profit from legal marijuana, then you'll know why their bought and paid for president and other politicians are fighting to keep it illegal.

Maybe the CIA really does finance themselves from the sale of illegal drugs.

I sympathize with your anger, blueveinedthrobber, but please note that it was three conservative judges who voted to uphold the Californian law. This was not a party-line vote, and your understandable anti-Bush reflexes may mislead you here.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:48 am
The opinion can be accessed here

Meanwhile, I eagerly await Thomas's renewed assault against Wickard v. Filburn.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 10:52 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Meanwhile, I eagerly await Thomas's renewed assault against Wickard v. Filburn.

So far, I don't appear to be having much opposition, and it isn't my style to preach to the converted. Maybe Debra will visit to agree with the ruling, but I'm pessimistic.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 11:05 am
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, wrote:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

I

Respondents' local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents' conduct, however, is not "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" Congress' restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents' conduct.

There isn't much more to say about this case. Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 11:18 am
I like when I agree with Thomas on stuff.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 11:21 am
McGentrix wrote:
I like when I agree with Thomas on stuff.

Which one?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 11:25 am
Heh. Both.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 11:30 am
Thomas wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
If you figure out why the drug companies can't profit from legal marijuana, then you'll know why their bought and paid for president and other politicians are fighting to keep it illegal.

Maybe the CIA really does finance themselves from the sale of illegal drugs.

I sympathize with your anger, blueveinedthrobber, but please note that it was three conservative judges who voted to uphold the Californian law. This was not a party-line vote, and your understandable anti-Bush reflexes may mislead you here.


fair enough and you are quite right. I still say however, that tp figure out why these drugs are not legal, one must merely follow the money trail.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 11:36 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
I still say however, that tp figure out why these drugs are not legal, one must merely follow the money trail.

Dunno -- I think it is basically another case of compulsory puritanism of the kind that would be unconstitutional if it were done for biblical purposes. But if the stated reason is that doctors protect grown-up citizens from themself, it seems constitution-proof. I have often wondered why America is so good at separating curch and state, yet so bad at separating secular ideologies and state. But I digress.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 12:11 pm
WHile I do not agree with the conclusion of the court, I can not find fault with their opinion.

I can find fault with Congress for not changing this law and provide for the States to administer what they feel is best for medicinal usages.

I find it amazing that the US congress can do AMAZING THINGS (see Terry Schiavo) toprotect a single life. Yet, they sit on their fat A$$E$ when this issue comes around.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 08:46 am
Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Meanwhile, I eagerly await Thomas's renewed assault against Wickard v. Filburn.

So far, I don't appear to be having much opposition, and it isn't my style to preach to the converted. Maybe Debra will visit to agree with the ruling, but I'm pessimistic.

The problem, as I see it, is not with Wickard, it's with the commerce clause. "Commerce" is a rather elastic concept. If it simply means "trade," then I would agree that Wickard and Raich should have been decided differently. But then the constitution doesn't say "interstate trade," it says "interstate commerce." And "commerce," I would argue, has a broader meaning than merely "trade."

I think the supreme court in Wickard was correct in noting that purely local "commerce" can have interstate effects, and that congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce would be severely compromised if it could not reach such local activities. Roscoe Filburn argued that the extra 239 bushels of wheat that he produced on his farm went to feeding his family and his livestock, and thus would never have entered the market anyway. What he failed to note, however, was that those 239 bushels of wheat represented 239 bushels that he did not purchase in the market; multiplied many times over, the depressive effect on the interstate commerce in wheat would have been just as severe as if the wheat had been sold on the open market.

Imagine if the court had ruled otherwise in Wickard. Congress exercises its power to regulate interstate commerce in wheat, but it has no power to regulate local activities like Roscoe Filburn's production of wheat in excess of his quota as long as the excess is used intrastate. Since wheat is fungible, and the wheat under the quota is indistinguishable from the wheat exceeding the quota, all the other Filburns in the state would do likewise. The market would then be flooded with wheat in excess of the combined state quota, since every farmer would sell quota wheat and consume excess wheat, rather than being both a seller and consumer of quota wheat. In other words, farmers would no longer compete with other wheat purchasers in the market; the resulting decline in demand would depress prices, which would, in turn, undermine the national quota system.

Now, for the diehard libertarian, this is an excellent result. I don't plan to argue in favor of price controls or quotas on commodities, but I do think that the result that I've outlined above is inconsistent with the notion of a single, uniform interstate market envisioned by the authors of the constitution. As such, congress must have some ability to regulate local commercial activities that have a significant impact on interstate commerce; otherwise, its power is, in large part, purely illusory.

The surprising thing about Raich, as one commentator has noted, is not that the supreme court upheld Wickard, it's that Rehnquist and O'Connor, who have supported Wickard in the past, now believe that congress has less authority to regulate marijuana than it has to regulate wheat.
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:59 am
bm

But for now all I can say is ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 04:14:15