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

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Per Fox News:

The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.

[AmishDude]

No responsible person would assert that marijuana is a cure for anything. It's marketed as a pain reliever.

[highball]

Perhaps you can point me to those conservatives supporting the usurptation of state powers by the oligarch. I don't see it.

The most disturbing ones, and the ones who inspired the original comment from another poster, were the "conservatives" in the Bush justice department.

"The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003"

You are right about one thing - the longer this thread goes, the more posters show disagreement with this ruling. That gives me great hope.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Justice Thomas' dissent is top-notch. Thank you for posting it.

[Hank Rearden]

But what case can honestly be made against medical pot? I can't think of anything significant.

Government parasites don't care about pot. They care about power.

[P_A_I]

Well said bump.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.

Scalia has always been an outcome-based rather than a legal-procedure-based justice.

[missyme]

As most drugs are produced by the Pharmecutical Industry...

[highball]

It is the "conservatives" in the administration, not on the Court, that disappoint me:

"The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003".

[jayef]

You've misread me.

[LAURENTIJ]

I suppose someone who would not use pot would seem 'bizarre' to one addicted to it.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

If we follow the Commerce clause out to its logical conclusion, then Congress can regulate the amount of flatulence you can expel on any given day. The fertilizer that grew the food that crossed state lines that you ate caused the bacteria in your digestion system to create gas which you than passed via... well you get the picture. Result: Thou shall not fart!

I dislike mind altering drugs, and will not consume them. But I dislike the 'war on drugs' even more. It is being used as an excuse to shred the inalienable rights we have as a birthright in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We still have ample Brave as evidenced by our troops in harms way, but Free? That is debatable.

[AmishDude]

Who cares if the authority was usurped from the states by the feds?

Doesn't matter. That little gem that asserts that the legislature is superior is a godsend.

[jwalsh07]

To be truthful it is very annoying to see lots of the same posters who skewered Thomas for his dissent in Lawrence v Texas applaud him for taking the same basic position here. Render unto the states what is the states.

[ActionNewsBill]

I refuse to become addicted to it.

Marijuana is not addictive.

There's plenty of good alternate methods available.

You mean like morphine?

Very addictive.

[AmishDude]

You're going to be flamed. Count on it.

Wouldn't be the first time. Won't be the last. I've been called worse things by better people.

[LAURENTIJ]

It's the most psychologically addictive substance there is, IMO.

[missyme]

Who's addicted to it? I'm not addicted to anything my friend except my Cat!

But you know nothing about POT and come on this thread spouting addiction, try going to and AA Meeting or a NA meeting.

[newgeezer]

You've misread me.

'Dude isn't the only one. It was easy.

[holdonnow]

It turns out that Thomas and Rehnquist in dissent were, in fact, challenging almost 60 years of liberal Supreme Court rulings holding that the federal government can regulate commerce WITHIN states. If a majority had ruled that way, the entire New Deal would have been called into question.