Pages: 1

another blow to what freedom we have left in the USA

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)


Posted by: MikeT

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158690,00.html

first of all don't think this is about pot or other drugs. This ruling basically says the federal government has the right to "regulate" ANYTHING due to the interstate commerce clause.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court (search) ruled Monday, concluding that state 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 (search), writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

Click here to read the decision (FindLaw).

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act (search) was constitutional.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case.

Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case. Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.

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

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.

"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday.

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 [California women] 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.

"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 in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (search) and Justice Clarence Thomas (search).

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated 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 were 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."

Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.

The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. 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.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.




Here is what Justice Thomas has to say about the ruling.

Quote:
"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." -- Justice Thomas





Posted by: 3SuperSports

There are more and more controls placed on our "so-called freedom" every day.



Posted by: Mr. P

After the lesson the US learned in the "many" painful years of prohibition, it appeared there was some movement to reduce the penalty for marijuana use in the US. After all, as with prohibition, this issue is one of the biggest fund raisers for drug cartels and terrorists. If they could focus on coke and smack, and release the grip on the "killer weed" it would appear to make a lot of sense. The stuff grows all over the state of Tennessee. People toss their seeds in rebellion all over the place, and it's impossible for the government to pull every "weed".

I agree with ya Mike, way too many rules.

Mr. P



Posted by: BurnOut

Mike- all the court is doing is upholding the law, like they're SUPPOSED to. If you'll recall, this is what the civil war was about... state's rights. The confederate states felt that state law should supercede federal law. Abe Lincoln disagreed, and a war was fought. Obviously, the north prevailed, and so it became widely known and accepted that federal law trumps state law.

Here, we have the same situation... there is a FEDERAL ban on something, and 10 states have decided to ignore the ban, thereby asserting that state law supercedes federal law. Been down this road before, haven't we?? All the supreme court is doing is what it's SUPPOSED to do... uphold the law. The key is in what Justice Stevens said... that CONGRESS should change the law. That's the way our government works.



Posted by: 3SuperSports

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnOut
Mike- all the court is doing is upholding the law, like they're SUPPOSED to. If you'll recall, this is what the civil war was about... state's rights. The confederate states felt that state law should supercede federal law. Abe Lincoln disagreed, and a war was fought. Obviously, the north prevailed, and so it became widely known and accepted that federal law trumps state law.

Here, we have the same situation... there is a FEDERAL ban on something, and 10 states have decided to ignore the ban, thereby asserting that state law supercedes federal law. Been down this road before, haven't we?? All the supreme court is doing is what it's SUPPOSED to do... uphold the law. The key is in what Justice Stevens said... that CONGRESS should change the law. That's the way our government works.



A federal ban on drug use with grass being listed as an illegal drug, sure. Now that it has a proven medicinal purpose, the supreme court is ignoring common sense. If cocaine would have helped my Mother through her cancer, I'd have risked arrest to go out and get it for her, and if it truly was something that helped her, I shouldn't have to.



Posted by: BurnOut

3SS- it is NOT up to the supreme court to ignore or acknowledge the medicinal uses of marijuana. It is up to congress to change the law.

Three branches of government:

* Legislative (Congress)- writes the laws
* Executive (President)- enforces the laws
* Judicial (court system)- interprets the laws



Posted by: JustaV6

pretty shiity...


even shiitttier is the fact a PLANT is illegal lol



Posted by: MikeT

Burnout

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.

How does that violate interstate commerce laws? If it is never sold, and never leaves the state?

BTW there is another case before the supreme court that challenges interstate commerce laws also. I'd imagine they will rule prettymuch the same for that case as well.



Posted by: MadScientistMatt

Could you imagine how difficult and expensive it would be to have a drug approved if each state had its own FDA? It's a lot more realistic to have just one agency that approves medicines for the whole United States. Logically, this makes sense for the feds to have authority here, simply because placing the burden of approving all drugs on each state government would lead to much higher expenses and a whole lot of chaos.

As for the "It's a plant" arguement - I hope you don't mean to say it's harmless. If you believe that smoking plants is always harmless, I challenge you to roll a joint from poison ivy and smoke it. This is likely to land you in the hospital if you inhale.



Posted by: Markus

Marijuana, and Coke Should be legal.



Posted by: TNT

Face facts, the medical marijuana movement has almost nothing to do with medicien and everything to do with legalization. That's why I don't support the loonies pushing it.

Any tweeker can walk into a pot cafe here in commiefornia with a poorly scribbled note from anyone claiming to be a doctor and get high. If the voters had known that's what was going to happen I'm sure that proposition wouldn't have passed, but the supporters of the idea lied.

Here's what I would support. A person in pain goes to the doctor, who writes an actual prescription. That slip is then taken to a PHARMACY where it is filled by professionals. The script even specifies measured doses, frequency the patient should take it, and how many refills permitted before the patient has to see the doctor again. Same as with vicodin, percocet, and any other painkiller. When it's handled that way it's medicine.

A bunch of dirty fucking hippies getting high in a cafe somewhere isn't medicine.



Posted by: LS1 Mopar Turbo

Who cares, let people do drugs if they want then tax it. If they want to die let em do it.



Posted by: Biff Buyer

tax on cigs is a big income for the gov. Im sure they would tax the hell out of any other addictive drugs



Posted by: MikeT

why does everything have to be taxed?



Posted by: MadScientistMatt

Marcus, you may be interested to hear that medicinal cocaine was never banned. Legally, you can still walk into a pharmacy with a doctor's prescription for it and buy a bottle. A few well-connected addicts still get theirs that way.

If the medical marijuanna guys really were about medicine, they'd push to have it taken off Schedule One and have it put through controlled clinical trials to see if it cures anything - and measure how bad its side effects might be. I'm sure they could find someone (George Soros, at least) who would be willing to finance these trials. Would you let a big pharmaceutical company get one of their pills FDA approved by lobbying alone and no tests? That would be the equivalent of what some of the medical marijuanna guys have been pushing for.



Posted by: 3SuperSports

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT
why does everything have to be taxed?



In the case of drugs and alcohol, it'd be to pay for the "fall-out".



Posted by: Slow Nova

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientistMatt
Marcus, you may be interested to hear that medicinal cocaine was never banned. Legally, you can still walk into a pharmacy with a doctor's prescription for it and buy a bottle.



Absolutely true. My brother had severe and frequent bloody noses when he was in his pre to early teens. The doctor gave my mother a bottle of cocaine in liquid form, to swab inside his nose to stop the bleeding.



Posted by: 98 VETTE DEVIL

I think they went about it the wrong way useing the medical excuse is the wrong card to play that leaves room for to to many excuses . They should have played the recreational use card better. There are more people useing recreationaly then medicly
that give you greater number of people in the loop and is a bigger window. its no worse than drinking. The problem is that its a money thing and the gov. will be left out.

98 tourch red corvette
manual 6 speed
still smokein



Back to the Forums



vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2009 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser