Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

AP ^ | 6/6/05 | Gina Holland

[donh]

When they demonized all forms of these drugs, me thinks they forgot about the benefits that would be lost to many patients. My 2 cents.

That was in 1937, and they didn't forget. The AMA testified strongly against the criminalization of marijuana, which up until then, was about as common as aspirin is now in the pharmacy, and for much the same reason. When the vote came up in congress, the AMA testimony was not reported before the vote--just Anslinger's diarretic stream of made-up nonsense about how marijuana inspired minority citizens to rape white women.

[tahiti]

"Absolutely true. To have ruled otherwise would be an example of the Court making (altering) federal law."

U.S. Constitution

Article III, Section 2

1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States

From "Restoring the Lost Constitution,"

…judicial nullification was included within the original meaning of the “judicial power.” Throughout the duration of the Convention no one disputed the existence of a judicial power to nullify unconstitutional laws.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."

What constitution is Justice Stevens reading?

Is it not a right "retained by the people," of free people, to consume the chemical of their choice, in the quantity of their choce, for the reason of their choice?

Justice Stevens and the majority is so constitutionally incorrect it makes me want to puke.

Why do free people have to beg for their natural rights to be respected and not impugned by the three branches of their federal government that is explicitly prohibited from doing the same?

Does not a "written down" constitution mean anything?

No power of Congress, can usurp the Bill of Rights.

[donh]

That's how it ended for booze.

Actually, the nail in the coffin for alcohol prohibition was the stream of testimony, before congress, of mothers who said something like this:

"Before alcohol prohibition, my children had to work very hard to get hold of beer and wine, distilled under federal guidelines, and sold under licensced control by legitimate businessmen who had a reputation to protect, and who could be sued. Under prohibition, my children can buy gin and vodka and rotgut that could easily blind them the first time they try it, from underage deputies of Al Capone, during recess.

Any of that seem vaguely similar to our current problems to you?

[poobear]

"...just Anslinger's diarretic stream of made-up nonsense about how marijuana inspired minority citizens to rape white women."

Another dark time in our society.

[poobear]

The subject here is pot and the legalizing for medical use. If you look at my other posts you will see I am FOR legalizing it. As far as drug abuse goes, it ALL can be misused. Look, I smoked my fair share growing up. You see, that's the point, I grew up. I could see myself at a school meeting, recital or trying to do payroll bombed out of my gourd or drunk on my @ss, NOT!

Anyway, if they won't let these poor sick people smoke, then why not give them some form of the drug that could help them medically and not upset their stomach somehow. Powder form under the tongue perhaps?

If you are still using, fine. I'm not, that's all.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Don't know about strawberries, but the federal government can and does regulate homegrown personal use wheat and it was upheld by the Roosevelt Supreme Court as affecting interstate commerce because you wouldn't be buying the name brand at the grocery.

Here is the flaw of logic: The Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, not things that affect interstate commerce. In theory, Congress could tell you which brand of wheat to buy at the store because your personal choice affects interstate commerce. Welcome to democracy. All your "rights" are subject to vote.

[poobear]

They should make it so strong that just holding it between your fingers would get you high. ;D!

[DuncanWaring]

Kind of reminds me of prohibition.

Except that "Prohibition", the War on Alcohol, required a Constitutional Amendment.

Why doesn't the War on Other Drugs require a Constitutional Amendment?

[VaBthang4]

"This whole business of making marijuana illegal is idiotic. Anyone who wants it can get it. It is grown everywhere for free. Doctors are already prescribing it for use."

It would appear that the Supreme Court has ruled and your contrarian/loserdopian point[s] are moot.

Bout friggin time!

[DuncanWaring]

That's what insurance is for.

Where does the insurance money come from?

From higher premiums.

You might as well say "That's what Welfare/Medicare/Medicaid/s for."

[Sinner6]

That's what insurance is for.

Insurance is part of the problem with the current health care system. People are insulated from costs and thus make poor choices. We need to move from the health care system to a market based system.

http://www.hsainsider.com

[Wolfie]

"This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.

One thing will change. They won't fall for registering with the gov't, or comply with centrlized distribution methods.

[DuncanWaring]

The Supreme Court has ruled...

The Supreme Court also ruled, once upon a time, that it was acceptable for one man to own another as property.

[reelfoot]

"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.'"

Rush was talking about this today. He said the majority opinion grounded the federal government's authority to trump state law regarding medical marijuana on an FDR-era Supreme Court decision that made a joke of the Constitution's commerce clause. Trashing the constitution by purposefully misinterpreting it in that way allowed many of FDR's socialist programs to go forth that would have otherwise been struck down as unconstitutional. Those who wish to relieve themselves of constitutional restrictions have two options: 1) amend it, or 2) avoid it by mangled interpretations. Because option 1 is laborious and uncertain, federal centralizers almost always choose option 2. That is what happened in this case (according to the facts I heard presented by Rush): no interstate commerce was involved, but the majority relied on the circa-1942 FDR court misinterpretation to once again achieve federal hegemony. O'Connor said she would have opposed the state law if she were a state voter or state legislator. I think I might also. But the federal government had no constitutional authority in this intrastate matter. Alas for the states and the constitutional separation of powers between the states and the D.C. government. Sorry to see Scalia not opposed to this form of constitution trampling.

[Sinner6]

Yet more New Deal bs

[bassmaner]

Why doesn't the War on Other Drugs require a Constitutional Amendment?

Interstate Commerce Clause.

Anyone just hear Rush talking about the ICC aspect of the medipot decision? He's a little late to the game ... we libertarians have been crying in the wilderness about Commerce Clause abuses by the feds for years.

I wonder why Rush is on board now, and he mentioned nothing about "dope-smoking, maggot-infested FM types" ... :^)

[Wolfie]

Perhaps when you've felt the hot breath of Leviathan on your own neck, its just not fun anymore.