SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes

[sheltonmac]

I've never subscribed to all of this "medical" marijuana crap. It's just a subterfuge to legalize marijuana in stages.

Get real. The toxic substances prescribed by doctors now (such as the mind-altering drugs shoved down children's throats because of bogus illnesses like ADD) are infinitely more dangerous than marijuana.

I applaud the Supreme Court's decision.

I oppose this SC ruling because it's an affront to states' rights. That should be the reasoning of anyone who believes in the concept of limited government. Leave issues like this up to the states.

[Dan from Michigan]

O'Connor and Renquist shocked me there. They seem to love pro "law and order" rulings, as does Scalia.

Thomas doesn't surprise me, and I thought Kennedy might be on there.

[oblomov]

I stand corrected. The reasoning behind this case is horrible. I completely disagree with it, and hope that it is overturned in dome farr-off future day (same with Wickard v. Filburn for that matter).

[dawn53]

I have MS too.

Never tried MJ for my problems, but my meds seem to work.

However, many in the MS community say they can throw half, if not all, their meds away (meds for spasticity, spasms, pain, etc) by just using MJ.

Of course, the pharmaceuticals don't make a penny, but when they can figure out a way (which they're hard at work on as we speak) to make $$$ off marijuana, then it will be legal.

[tacticalogic]

OK, medical marijuana wasn't "ruled illegal," the Court ruled that power should be delegated to the states on this matter.

Then they're still wrong, and will be until they figure out the difference between "reserved" and "delegated".

[Last Visible Dog]

SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes

THANKS GOODNESS - now, once again, the country will be safe.

\Sarcasm

[JeffAtlanta]

"judicial activism" has been reduced to "whenever a judge makes a decision that I (we) don't like". Sigh.

Yeah, I doubt that James Dobson will use this decision as an example of judicial activism.

[newgeezer]

I'm coming closer and closer to moving to another country.

Which one?

[tacticalogic]

Everybody seems to suffer from that particular blind spot these days - "judicial activism" has been reduced to "whenever a judge makes a decision that I (we) don't like". Sigh.

Opportunism abounds.

[Just another Joe]

No libertarian hyperbole here.
That's is what the USSC's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause says.

Do you really think the tide of tyranny, and a police state, can be turned short of armed rebellion?
I don't.
When it get's to that point let me know and I'll come back and help.
Until then, I'll continue to make my plans.

As for France, not my type of country. I'll leave you to invade that and give 'em all a bath.

[wardaddy]

I'm not surprised from a legal standpoint but I think it's somewhat wrong from just an old common sense perspective.

They do exactly the same on gun laws. An ex-felon is allowed to have a firearm after application in many Southern and Mountain states but God forbid a federal park barney or ATF stop ya. 5 year min-man.

Guess ya'll settled State's Rights 150 years ago..lol

[Sir Gawain]

This is the best decision of the year. Imagine. Laws made by the legislature.

Imagine. The Supreme Court actually correctly interpreting the Constitution instead of relying on incorrect past Court decisions like Wickard. Just imagine.

[wardaddy]

Well...that is encouraging to a degree.

[seacapn]

Here is a link to Thomas's dissent:

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf

The majority holding:

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZO.pdf

Scalia's concurrence:

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZC.pdf

[NeoCaveman]

Thomas doesn't surprise me, and I thought Kennedy might be on there.

Thomas doesn't suprise me at all.

I fear Kennedy has been "growing in the office" over the years.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The constitution expressly gives the federal government, congress specifically, exclusive control over immigration law.

It is somewhat encouraging that the court decided we should let elected officials decide this rather than the courts.

However, I think that is only encouraging in the modern world where we have accepted the right of the court to make those decisions.

In the world of the constitution, the court is supposed to be deciding whether the federal government has the right to pass a law that circumvents the will of the people as expressed in their state legislatures.

What is the compelling interest of a person living in Virginia which is harmed if a person in California can grow pot for his own use? Why should Oregon have to convince a majority of people in all 50 states before it gives ITS citizens the right to smoke pot for medical use?

If there IS a compelling federal interest, it doesn't seem to have been argued in this case. The court seems too quick to grant individual's rights that don't exist, and also too quick to deny to the states any rights whatsoever.

[soundandvision]

Does anyone know how Thomas ruled on this?

[jayef]

PEOPLE ARE DYING . . .

Do you not get that? Do you really think that it is the government's place to tell you how to take care of your body's needs?

[Lazamataz]

Libertarian hyperbole at it's finest, enjoy your stay in france, kust like your compatriots alec baldwin and barabara streisand.

Say, are you able to produce that post where (you claim) I support Hillary?

[wardaddy]

I thought the so called conservatives sans Anton dissented.