Supremes rule against medical marijuana

nimh wrote:

Eehhmm ... hello - I'm from Holland, remember? The "fact" is that posession of marijana is NOT illegal where I'm from. So I don't get where I'm supposed to be merely "hypothesising".

But we are discussing the ruling made in the US and the legalities of marijuana in the US.

McGentrix wrote:

nimh wrote:

Eehhmm ... hello - I'm from Holland, remember? The "fact" is that posession of marijana is NOT illegal where I'm from. So I don't get where I'm supposed to be merely "hypothesising".

But we are discussing the ruling made in the US and the legalities of marijuana in the US.

And you were arguing, the best I've understood, that steps towards legalisation are ill-advised because of the drug's gateway effect. I'd say that the possibility, left open in the source you brought, that legalisation would actually decrease the gateway effect is all too relevant to the topic of "the legalities of marijuana in the US". Now you dismissed this possibility as purely "hypothetical", but that it is not, simply because (partial) legalisation has been implemented in other countries.

Basically, if you are arguing against legalisation on the basis of the gateway effect argument, I dont see how experiences on that count in other countries where there was some legislation can be irrelevant?

(It's a bit odd to bring a source about Australia, but if it is countered by a comparison with Holland say that's irrelevant because "we are discussing the ruling made in the US".)

I think Rehnquist, Black, and O'Connor got it right.

DTom writes

Quote:

the legalization of marijuana would affect the prescription drug market though, imo.

You could be right here, but wouldn't that in fact give credence to the idea that interstate traffic would be affected? Look at the case cited. A farmer grows more wheat than his allocated quota on the theory that if he uses all the extra wheat himself for seed, etc. he isn't hurting anybody. But the court ruled that no, if the farmer uses his own overproduction, he is not buying wheat for seed, etc. and thus interstate sales are affected.

So if people growing their own pot affect interstate sales of pharmaseuticals, then that would be the same thing, yes? Dumb or not, you can see the rationale.

Personally I would rather see marijuane decriminalized and tightly regulated for awhile just to see if it would have a detrimental affect on society. I am opposed to criminalizing things because they MIGHT be harmful.

But

John W K - isn't your objection the very reason that the majority opinion had to be based on the interstate commerce clause (however ridiculous that basis may be in the specific case), so as to supersede all state law?

And isn't that the very basis for both dissents I and II, specifically dissent I (i) and (ii) with which Rehnquist concurred?

I'll rephrase. Several states (incl. California) have declared medical marijuana to be legal, especially when grown on ill peoples' own premises for their own use - such as were involved in this case.

In order to override this very clear issue of states'
rights, wasn't it necessary to find some major federal interest in the matter, and was this not done here by what Rehnquist termed a "breathtaking expansion" of the commerce clause?

Amendment XVIII - Liquor abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment XXI, 12/5/1933. History

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

18th Amendment
Consumption of alcohol was discouraged by law in many of the states over the first century of the United States under the Constitution. By 1855, 13 of the 31 states had temperance, or alcohol prohibition, laws. The Civil War distracted the public from the temperance movement, but the proliferation of saloons after the Civil War, and the trappings of the saloons (like gambling, prostitution, and public drunkenness) led to the so-called "Women's War" in 1873. Over time, the movement became more organized and the Anti-Saloon League was established in 1893. The ASL's goal was national prohibition, and it set up an office in Washington to that end - it even established its own publishing house in Westerville, Ohio.

The ASL polled candidates on their stand on the temperance question, endorsing candidates with a pro-temperance stance. In the election of 1915, ASL-sponsored candidates swept the elections for Congress, and on December 18, 1917, Congress passed the 18th Amendment. It quickly was adopted by the states, being ratified in just over a year, on January 16, 1919 (394 days).

Amendment XXI - Amendment XVIII repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

21st Amendment
It would be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment was completely ineffective. It would also be a disservice to say that the 18th Amendment caused the lawlessness embodied by people like Al Capone. The 18th Amendment did reduce alcohol consumption in the United States, and it did not cause organized crime. In the Prohibition era, alcohol consumption dropped to an average of less then a gallon of alcohol per person per year, down from two and a half gallons in 1915. And organized crime existed before Prohibition, and existed after it, too.

That having been said, the Prohibition era did have a certain sense of lawlessness; the very fact that consumption was not eliminated is testimony to that; and the fact that organized crime manufactured and distributed the bulk of the illicit alcohol of the 1920's and early 1930's is evidence that gangsters were aided by Prohibition. Enforcement was spotty, with stills and speakeasies popping up in every population center. Over-zealous police and federal agents violated civil rights when searching for and destroying the paraphernalia of alcohol. While most Americans respected the law, were in favor of the law, the shine of "dry" began to wear off, especially as the Great Depression set in.

A movement began to form to repeal the 18th Amendment. Prohibition of alcohol was seen as an affront to personal liberty, pushed on the nation by religious moralists. Alcohol was also seen as a source of revenue for the local and national governments. The effort to elect "wet" legislators was as grand as that to elect "dry" ones almost two decades earlier. The Congress passed the amendment on February 20, 1933 (288 days). It mandated, for the first time, that conventions of the states were to vote on the amendment, rather than the legislatures, feeling that conventions would be more apt to vote to ratify - and they did, quickly - the ratification process was complete on December 5, 1933. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, the first time an amendment had been repealed by another.

Tks, John, that was my understanding also.

Next question: federal agents actually arrived and confiscated a couple of flower pots in the home of an unfortunate user dying of cancer - which strikes me as nothing short of monstrous. What appeal, if any, is available to these ill people? New legislation? And at what level, federal or state?