Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/08/2005 6:54:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
The Hemp Evolution website (hempevolution.org) is in red- alert mode in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday upholding the right of the federal government to prosecute users of medicinal marijuana.
"The Supreme Court rules against the sick," is one of the milder headlines on just one of the Internet websites dedicated to promoting the wondrous benefits to be obtained by smoking marijuana.
A close reading of some of the latest mainstream media dispatches indicates that users of medicinal marijuana, now permitted in 10 states including Colorado, don't really have much to fear from the court's decision. Authorities in all of these states have rushed to the camera to announce that they have no intention of sending out search parties to find small stashes of marijuana.
Indeed, the five-justice majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens virtually sides with those who think state authorities should now ignore the court's ruling. Stevens writes:
"This case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes. The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather it is whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer."
That passage suggests that if state and federal authorities wish to look the other way at future violations, it will be OK with the court.
It is also interesting that Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision, has suddenly become the darling of the pro-marijuana crowd. Thomas said that if the federal government can regulate home-grown medicinal marijuana, it can regulate "quilting bees, clothes sales, and potluck suppers."
Those planning a potluck supper need not panic. Nor is it likely that Congress will do what the pro-marijuana lobby would like it to do, which is carve out a medical exception to the drug laws.
The reason for this congressional reluctance is not hard to determine. The fact is, as Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in a concurring opinion Monday, it's hard to tell the difference between marijuana intended for intrastate use from that intended for interstate use.
"Not only is it impossible to distinguish 'controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate' from 'controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate' but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms," he said. "As the court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular state." Critics of the majority decision have decried the fact that the court has again turned its back on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and its people. But in jumping to the conclusion that the Tenth Amendment is officially dead, they must ignore the impact of a number of prior Supreme Court cases that ultimately controlled the outcome in this case.
Again, it's the Culture of DisrespectTM, with no concern about individual rights. I believe that they look at people like Mrs. Schiavo as pawns, not as individuals who have rights of their own. Those who claim compassion for Mrs. Schiavo don't care to know details of her case, rather wishing to project.
That's why there's no compassion here, and no respect for the Constitution or individual rights. The Culture of DisrespectTM is sweeping the globe, mark my words!
You can challenge 'til you're blue in the face, but nobody will ever have the balls to take you up on it.
Would the nice federal agents with the guns and handcuffs be able to stop you? Methinks they could.
To deny patients the very thing that would ease their suffering is inhumane.
Welcome to post-Constitutional America... :-(
Yeah, and don't forget it's a gateway drug. Can't have that.
Not if I was growing only what I needed in my bedroom.
My home is full of house plants. I don't see a pot plant that being any harder to grow.
Thomas is right.
This case isn't as much about marijuana as it is about the intrusion of the High Court into state laws.
No matter what one thinks of marijuana all of us should be concerned when judges meddle in state laws with no backing from the Constitution.
The Commerce Clause if left to the interpretation of the SC can well become a means to regulate every product of daily life since every product is "only an instant away from an interstate market".
The Constitution tells government what it cannot do. It was never meant for government to tell us what we cannot do.
The reaction here on FR to this ruling makes me think that when it comes down to it, we originalists really don't have any support in opposing judicial activism.
"...this all started in 2002, when officials with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration raided the California home of Diane Monson, a chronic-pain patient, and destroyed her six marijuana plants. Monson became Raich’s co-plaintiff." --The Boston Phoenix
"The DEA and the Butte County Sheriff’s deputies raided Diane on August 15, 2002. The local District Attorney agreed Monson’s six medical cannabis plants were lawful under local guidelines and California’s Compassionate Use Act, and personally contacted the United States Attorney. Nevertheless, DEA agents insisted on seizing and destroying Diane’s six medical cannabis plants. To date, the DEA has never filed any charges against Monson." --Diane Monson's bio on supportive websites.
In other words, the DEA might not arrest you, but destroying your plants is definitely a course of action they take.
Then I would just have to get more. If I were suffering from chronic pain, or was suffering from the after affects of chemo therapy. I would get more.
ok, no problem. So I suppose you don't care about gun control, either..since you can always get more. Same with confiscatory taxes...you can always earn more money.
Well, for me, I'm opposed to this governmental brushing aside of the Constitution. I have no intent of using these drugs, but that's not the important point.
You're right. There's only a small amount of Freepers who want change.
If you think this latest decision is being poo-pooed on this board try finding support for judicial term limits, or using the Judiciary Committees to call judges into question because of their rulings, or any kind of debate about how to change the judiciary.
We hear a lot about judicial activism here, but not a lot about a way to seriously control it. The Framers gave us a way to constitutionally change government when government got out of hand. Well, the judiciary has been out of hand for a long time, but most Freepers prefer to keep the status quo and whine about it.
What on earth does one thing have to do with the other? You are really drifting on this.
I said they will not stop me from procuring weed if and when I should need it. Their decision was wrong on so many levels.
Well, for me, I'm opposed to this governmental brushing aside of the Constitution. I have no intent of using these drugs, but that's not the important point.
Where on any of my post did I say I was in agreement with what the idiot SCOTUSA did concerning medical weed?
You sound like you have a problem with them and you are taking it out on me.
ping
im back from being suspended now i was getting al lyour pings to me i just couldnt respond to them until tonight
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
My point was that the idea of "I'll just get more" seems a bit "head in the sand"-ish to me. What has bothered me about this decision is the way so many people seem to be fooled by the "but don't worry...they won't enforce it strongly" attitude so many people have.
Sorry if it came across as taking it out on you.
The problem is freedom.
Democrats want to control your freedom in one way and Republicans another.
Originalists (I hadn't heard that name for it until recently, and I like it) believe that there should be freedom, and that's what the Constitution grants. Or rather, prevents the Government from taking away.
Apparently, there are some out there who think that freedom is a maleable thing that they can take away on a whim. If you don't like someone doing something that is of no harm to anyone else, then don't watch. If an adult wants to light up in their home, and get high, who cares? It doesn't hurt you. If someone gets high and goes and crashes a car into a bus stop with 10 people, I'd say prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Just like alcohol. If two consenting adults decide they want to get together to have some form of sex, what should the state say about it? Nothing. If one of the people participating in that activity instead is a child, or non-consenting adult (and I mean truly non-consenting, not the "I'm waiting until penetration to scream rape" type) then frankly, they should be buried under the jail. That's my biggest gripe with the Republican Party. If you are doing something that's not "moral" or "right" then they want to stomp on it. In the opposing direction, the Democrats have a different sort of madness. They want you to do what you want, just according to their rules, and pay a fee for it. Frankly, their way leads to more bending/breaking of the rules, and they don't protect the innocent at all, but both ways are equally wrong.
Our Constitution enumerates the restrictions on the GOVERNMENT. NOT the CITIZENS. And this newest ruling turns that on its head.
I'm sure this post will be either glossed over by the anti-drug at any cost crowd, or if not, some minor nit will be the focus, but the main thrust of the post will be totally ignored. Because it doesn't fit into your model of how you want the world to work. I challenge you to read the whole thing, and actually try to deconstruct the arguments in a logical fashion. It will reveal a lot about how oppressive you actually are. BTW, I've never smoked pot, or done any illegal drugs, so I have no dog in this hunt on that. And if you are curious as to why I would have had any reason for that, it's real simple. I had cancer when I was 16 and the pain was excruciating. I decided I was becoming too dependent on my pain medication, so I took myself off them for three days just to clear out my system. I never went to sleep those nights, I passed out. I have had chronic, debilitating back pain for 18 years since my cancer. I have never taken more than a prescription muscle relaxer. This, despite the fact that some days the pain gets so bad, that my system shuts down and I lose control of all the muscles in my legs and suffer temporary paralysis. I am not some form of superman, nor do I try to claim to be. I just like keeping my mind clear to be able to think straight. So, if you ask me, I think I'm well qualified to tell you that getting rid of pain is VERY justified, with any means necessary. I'm just too darn stubborn to do so most days.
Paul
I don't support the decision, but to answer your question, how about carrying guns in a school zone?
I didn't know I had a model of how the world should work. All I would like to see is a debate on how the judiciary should work, and right now it's not working like the Framers intended it to work.
I challenge you to read the whole thing, and actually try to deconstruct the arguments in a logical fashion.
I just did read the whole thing, and I'll try to answer your points.
It will reveal a lot about how oppressive you actually are. /I>
How did I get to be oppressive? I'd like to see the judiciary changed so it takes the Constitution more seriously, doesn't water it down with each passing ruling, and gives states the rights to govern their people as they see fit. What's oppressive about that?
BTW, I've never smoked pot, or done any illegal drugs, so I have no dog in this hunt on that.
Yes you do...we all do. Unless the judiciary is brought back under the control of Congress they will continue to make laws from the bench, and overrule laws made from the Legislature. We all have a dog in this hunt.
I had cancer when I was 16 and the pain was excruciating.
I'm sorry that you had cancer in your life, and there's no way I can imagine what your pain must be like. But, this isn't about pain, or marijuana use, it's a simple case of the highest court in the land telling us all how we must live. Justice Thomas is right when he says that the Court will soon be able to tell us what we can and cannot buy. It's a case of judicial overreach, another judicial power grab, and our Congress does nothing to stop it.
So, if you ask me, I think I'm well qualified to tell you that getting rid of pain is VERY justified, with any means necessary.
I think you are very qualified to talk about pain, and the ways to deal with it. Apparently there are some people who have chosen to use marijuana, under a doctor's prescription, to deal with their pain, and our Black Robed jurists say they can't do that. Suppose the way you've dealt with your own pain was condemned by some judges, would you think highly of them then?
Our Constitution enumerates the restrictions on the GOVERNMENT. NOT the CITIZENS. And this newest ruling turns that on its head.
You're right about that. All I want to see, here on FR, is a serious debate about how the people can regain control of this rogue judiciary we now have. The Constitution gives us the means through the amendment process, but first there needs to be a grassroots debate. That's what's sadly lacking.
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.