[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Latest Updates At HOUR 9 -- Bookmark Here

[Nachum]

Interesting that this became a states-rights issue.

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.

Kind of reminds me of prohibition.

[ClearCase_guy]

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

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

Also, the headline is great. Court opposes giving medicine to sick people. Those meanies!!

[poobear]

Why can't their doctors just prescribe THC pills or some sort of facsimile? From what I've heard, the potency of this medical marijuana is pretty low anyway.

[muawiyah]

Congress has no authority to pass any sort of law regarding the Koran as a "holy item" or "religious establishment".

It's just paper pulp under our laws.

[Republican Wildcat]

Breakdown of Justices:

Opinion of the Court: Stevens, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy

Dissent: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas

[Dinsdale]

Watch for the states to pass new laws forbiding the use of state funds to enforce federal pot laws.

That's how it ended for booze.

[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.

[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.

[k2blader]

Now there's an unbiased headline. *LOL*

[expatguy]

Looks like the stoners are gonna have to settle for a chubby instead of a fatty.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[Kryptonite]

I've seen people proudly reveal that they smoke pot because their doctors prescribed it for "anxiety".