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.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Sorry, but I thought I was posting to Dane.

So here's a ping just in case he hasn't been cloned.

[holdonnow]

Sad to say, Thomas and Rehnquist (and what's her name) are dead-on. The Commerce Clause is the issue, and it involves commerce AMONG THE STATE, not within a state. The Necessary and Proper Clause reference by Scalia, who is brilliant, seems misplaced to me. I fear it's a dangerous idea to say that once the federal government regulates, it's free to regulate to the bitter end because it's necessary and proper to do so to maintain is regulatory scheme.

[kjam22]

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?

The same reason that we want New Hampshire to convince a majority of people in all 50 states before it legalizes homosexual marriage.

[drjimmy]

Because, back when I was using it years ago, I would smoke like a chimney for 9 months, and stop cold turkey for 3 months.
Would those 9 months be while you were at college, and the 3 months while home over the summer? (Just a guess based on my own experience from those many years ago.)

[missyme]

LOL..Thanks for reminding me!

[jwalsh07]

You never have gotten this right, my friend. Thomas got both right. Same sex sodomy is not protect by the 14th amendment, and the Commerce Clause covers trade AMONG the states, not within a state. The farmers would never, and in fact did not, empower the central government to run our economy. But you side with FDR and his Court on judicial activism, by changing the Commerce Clause to say something it does not say.

:-}. Mark, have another cup of coffee. That's exactly what I said. You have been consistent agreeing that Thomas got it right in Lawrence and here while libertarians skewered Thomas' dissent in Lawrence and are loving him with his latest dissent on the Commerce Clause.

Somehow I don't think FDR or judicial activist would accurately characterize my views.

[holdonnow]

The difference is that there is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage, but state and federal courts may try to impose it on the other states through other constitutional provisions, including the 14th amendment. These ballot initiatives are wholly applicable within each state because they are based on people-passed laws, not based on constitutional interpretations. So, they would not impact other states.

[kjam22]

I am trying to be consistent on this issue since I also believe that it should be left up to each state to decide if they want to allow abortion.

And homosexual marriage?

[dirtboy]

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

Ah - so if Congress is doing the usurping, it's less painful than if a federal judge does it.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The same reason that we want New Hampshire to convince a majority of people in all 50 states before it legalizes homosexual marriage.

New Hampshire? I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[dirtboy]

At least it's Congress. Usually it's a peon federal judge who's doing the goring.

Ah - so if Congress is doing the usurping, it's less painful than if a federal judge does it.

[holdonnow]

I APOLOGIZE. I actually meant to respond to another. Again, I apologize.

[jwalsh07]

Fair enough.

[Lazamataz]

However, that's beside the point. Based solely on news accounts, this is, in essence, a continuation of Wickard v. Filburn (which involved homegrown wheat), in which interstate commerce was said by the Court to include commerce wholly within a state -- enabling the federal government to regulate virtually without limit state and private economic activity.

It's sad. They've completely abrogated the intent of our founding documents.

Armed with the Commerce Clause, there is nothing that the FedGuv cannot usurp.

[Republican Wildcat]

The Court ruled based on Federal Law. Federal Law trumps state laws which conflict, per the Constitution's supremacy clause.

[newgeezer]

"chimney for 9 months" You've convinced me.. Not addictive.. LOL

I guess I'm missing what's so funny. If people can use a substance as much as they want for as long as they want, and can stop using it whenever they want for as long as they want -- without any symptoms of withdrawal -- can you still say that substance is 'addictive'?

Maybe you're just not in the mood for a rational discussion.

[jwalsh07]

No sweat, your last book on the oligarchy gets you a "No Apology Required" card.

Keep on keeping on Mark.

[kjam22]

There's no federal constitutional right to smoking marijuana. But courts may try to impose that right on other states through the 14th. The exact same can be said.

There is no federal constitutional right to smoke marijuana. And our elected represenatives have voted by the will of the people that this activity is illegal. I think the court ruled correctly in supporting what our duly elected represenatives have legislated.

[headsonpikes]

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

This from a poster who chugalugs Gubmint Koolaid at a truly frightening rate.

But then, Koolaid is the nectar of the Gods to fully-conditioned 'citizens' such as you.

Or, perhaps you're just a high-school stoner libertarian jerking chains. Perhaps.

[Lazamataz]

Oh: And it kinda sucks to actually be here to witness the devolution of America to something I'd rather not be in.

I hate that Chinese "Interesting times" curse.