Posted on 06/06/2005 4:41:40 AM PDT by gieriscm
The local, Washington DC affiliate of ABC News (Channel 7) reported that the USSC ruling on the Raich medical marijuana case would be released this morning.
It would not surprise me at all if the court rules in favor of the government and then dodges the issue of interstate commerce, by claiming a "compelling state interest" in keeping marijuana illegal.
smoke 'em if ya got 'em . . . fwiw, shoulda been legal a long time ago . . .
It was, before Reefer Madness.
Ruling in...Feds win ..states lose.
Genesis 1:26-31
It's a matter of religious faith to a lot more people than you think.
Reversed, 6-3, per Justice Stevens. Can't wait to read it.
SUPREME COURT: FEDS CAN PROSECUTE SICK PEOPLE WHO SMOKE MARIJUANA ON DR'S ORDERS
per Drudge
Drudge changed headlines to read...(he hasn't put the story up yet)
SUPREME COURT: NO ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
There was no "deal". The program wasn't voluntary.
6-3 in favor of feds. Opinion by Stevens.
This is all I can find at the moment...
Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana use
Associated Press
June 6, 2005 MARIJUANA0607
WASHINGTON — 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.
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.
snip
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
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.
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."
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.
Associated Press
You are correct. Wilburn did enroll in the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which among other things, paid farmers to not plant certain crops/raise certain livestock in the 1930's/1940's.
A suggestion that applied then, as in now - if farmers don't want to invite the government into their lives in this manner, then don't enroll in these problems. You can't have the bacon without the squeal. Wilburn would not have had a problem if he had not enrolled in the AAA.
Which is completely beside the point. The New Deal grows. Thanks for nothing Dubya.
Just as I predicted in post # 4.
Just as I predicted in post # 4.
Looks like a victory for the penumbras and emanations of substantial effects and aggregation.
Don't break the law and you won't get arrested.
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.