[Wolfie]

Please. Slam dunk for the Feds. Our whole way of life depends on the Commerce Clause Uber Alles.

[Wolfie]

ping

[thoughtomator]

Terrorist war criminals in a military camp have more rights than marijuana smokers right now.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I am praying that Rationality rules on this one. Let's put the first nail in the coffin on our Lost War On Drugs. I want my tax dollars to go to border control, defense and our infrastructure, not marijuana plants. And it seems that medical marijuana is a no brainer. By the way, Great Britain is way ahead of us on research on developing marijuana plants that are more powerful at eliminating the pain and nausea that marijuana eases. My guess is that the pharmaceutical companies will not oppose medical marijuana cause they want to get in on this research and production.

[bored at work]

smoke 'em if ya got 'em . . . fwiw, shoulda been legal a long time ago . . .

[byteback]

Ruling in...Feds win ..states lose.

[Sandy]

Reversed, 6-3, per Justice Stevens. Can't wait to read it.

[kcvl]

SUPREME COURT: FEDS CAN PROSECUTE SICK PEOPLE WHO SMOKE MARIJUANA ON DR'S ORDERS

per Drudge

[kcvl]

Drudge changed headlines to read...(he hasn't put the story up yet)


SUPREME COURT: NO ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

[Quick1]

Nothing like a little more judicial activism trampling on State Rights yet again.

[JCEccles]

Well, you picked Thomas right. Scalia didn't bite, though. It will be interesting to read what he has to say because he concurred in a separate opinion, declining to join the social liberal majority in its reasoning.

In any event, the matter appears to be dead for some time.

What an interesting development. The socially liberal Supreme Court majority, famous for finding rights at the drop of a hat, refused to find one in the marijuana patch.

The pot heads still have real options. Will they pursue them or will they sit in a corner and pout?