Skip to comments.
Supreme Court OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions
Fox News ^
| 6/6/05
Posted on 06/06/2005 7:47:53 AM PDT by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: Crackingham
Maybe the Feds can take some resources from the borders to go after them.
2
posted on
06/06/2005 7:48:41 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Wolfie
Legalize it and be done with this nonsense.
3
posted on
06/06/2005 7:49:40 AM PDT
by
zarf
To: Wolfie
And as usual, the feds are using the commerce clause, put in place originally to make sure states didn't impose their own tarriffs and using it to justify federal meddling in everything.
4
posted on
06/06/2005 7:50:55 AM PDT
by
agitator
(...And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark)
To: Crackingham
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." What a cowardly cop-out.
5
posted on
06/06/2005 7:51:11 AM PDT
by
CrawDaddyCA
(There is no such thing as a fair fight. Thou shall win at all costs!!)
To: Wolfie
Ha, you kidder you. The federal government only spends trillions per year. That's not enough to devote any resources to the border, especially while we've got cancer patients taking illegal medicine.
6
posted on
06/06/2005 7:51:37 AM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
To: Crackingham
This is not a good day for States' Rights.
The Supremes have again confirmed that the states have just as much authority as the Feds give them. "You can have any laws in your state, as long as we in Washington agree with them."
Dark, dark day.
7
posted on
06/06/2005 7:51:47 AM PDT
by
highball
To: Crackingham
concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. once again, the 10th Amendment is null-and-void.
8
posted on
06/06/2005 7:51:57 AM PDT
by
OXENinFLA
To: Crackingham
9
posted on
06/06/2005 7:51:58 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Want to be surprised? Goooooooogle your own name.............)
To: Crackingham
Damned black robed tyrants.
10
posted on
06/06/2005 7:53:21 AM PDT
by
Centurion2000
("THE REDNECK PROBLEM" ..... we prefer the term, "Agro-Americans")
To: highball
Dark, dark day. And applauded by "conservatives" everywhere (especially in the White House).
11
posted on
06/06/2005 7:53:24 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Wolfie
Maybe the Feds can take some resources from the borders to go after them.Exactly. After all its much more important to prosecute a bunch of terminally ill people than for the Feds to do their Constitutionally prescribed duty:
US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion".
But when did the Federal Government ever let the Constitution tell them what to do.
12
posted on
06/06/2005 7:57:33 AM PDT
by
jtullins
To: Crackingham
WOW! This sucks for cancer victims and those with extreme medical conditions! But!... sodomy is ok though! Whew, thank goodness for the SC gods...NOT!
To: Red Badger
Not clear in the AP articles what the breakdown was. But O'Connor wrote a dissent. I bet she was joined by Scalia and Thomas - but I could be wrong.
14
posted on
06/06/2005 7:58:21 AM PDT
by
Darth Reagan
(All too easy.)
To: jtullins
Anyone have the breakdown, please. Who voted for/against. Thanks.
To: Crackingham
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. So much for the concept of the federal government only having powers enumerated in the Constitution, and all other powers reverting to the states or to individuals.
Interstate Commerce Clause uber alles.
16
posted on
06/06/2005 7:58:54 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws spawned the federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
To: Wolfie
And applauded by "conservatives" everywhere (especially in the White House). I guess that's the part of this that P!$$es me off the most. I can live with bureaucrats shoving their heads in the sand, that the norm. It's the people that wrap themselves in the conservative flag to the point of it being a religion, and then can't seem to comprehend the most basic elements of it.
17
posted on
06/06/2005 7:59:26 AM PDT
by
vikzilla
To: Wolfie
That's the scary thing. They aren't really conservatives at all.
We have to fight for all rights, not just the ones we like. Too many conservatives want the government out of their lives, but don't care about the other guy.
I don't like dope, but if a state wants to allow it by prescription, who the hell are the Feds to step in and overrule the state's laws?
18
posted on
06/06/2005 7:59:46 AM PDT
by
highball
To: Crackingham
Yet, far worse drugs are allowed for sick people, and even some who aren't so sick. Let the cancer patients use it, fer cryin' out loud. (What ever happened to states rights???)
19
posted on
06/06/2005 8:00:04 AM PDT
by
MizSterious
(First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
To: Darth Reagan
I wonder if Rehnquist has toked during his cancer therapy?
20
posted on
06/06/2005 8:00:49 AM PDT
by
Finalapproach29er
(America is gradually becoming the Godless,out-of-control golden-calf scene,in "The Ten Commandments")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson