Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 06/06/2005 7:16:18 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs

Per Fox News:

The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: angrydopeheads; angrynannies; backtosniffingglue; bitterbitterdopers; bitterbitternannies; bitterbittersweets; bongbrigade; buzzkill; cluelesswoders; cruelty; doperhell; farout; fedophiles; hahahahahaha; illtoketothat; justsayno; keepgypsumlegal; libertarianlastdays; medicalmarijuana; mrleroyweeps; newdealotry; newdealots; nohightimes; pissedhippies; ruling; scalia; scotus; screwtheconstitution; statism; statistsrejoice; thebuzzisgone; timetosoberup; weeddude; whatstatesrights; wod; wodlist; wowman; youforgottheruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,261-1,272 next last
To: BaBaStooey
Thank you.


21 posted on 06/06/2005 7:25:03 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Mister Peanut is not a peanut, he's a legume.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

I hope this report is incorrect - but I doubt that it is.


22 posted on 06/06/2005 7:25:25 AM PDT by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
It will be interesting to see what their Constitutional justification is.

The all-powerful, all-encomposing Commerce Clause.

Kinda like Santa Claus, only much more unconstitutional.

If you are standing quietly in a locked room, you are affecting interstate commerce, according to those who would abrogate the BoR.

23 posted on 06/06/2005 7:25:35 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Republican Party is the France of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

So are we going to fill the prisons with cancer patients?


24 posted on 06/06/2005 7:25:58 AM PDT by alisasny (We get 4 more years, you get OBAMA...: ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

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.

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."


25 posted on 06/06/2005 7:26:23 AM PDT by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: seacapn
I can't wait for the public backlash that will follow if the federal government decides to start martyring patients over this decision.

Backlash, shmacklash. GET BACK TO TENDING YOUR FIELD, SERF!

26 posted on 06/06/2005 7:26:32 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Republican Party is the France of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

27 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:05 AM PDT by Lady Jag (Honor and Dignity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT

Sadly,

The Bush administration supported this expansion of federal power. Anybody remember the so-called 10th amendment?

Where's a good strict constructionist when you need 5 of 'em?


28 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:33 AM PDT by aliceburrows ("Well, after this, I should think nothing of falling down stairs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

"High court" just says no. Dope smokers are still one toke over the line.


29 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:48 AM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny
So are we going to fill the prisons with cancer patients?

Hey, this is a WAR, baby. We're gonna kill ya if you try to get relief from cancer.

30 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:51 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The Republican Party is the France of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mikse
But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused...

Maybe the legal issue was pretty clear, for once.

31 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:54 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: byteback

Didn't John Ashcroft bring this case to the SC?


32 posted on 06/06/2005 7:28:37 AM PDT by aliceburrows ("Well, after this, I should think nothing of falling down stairs")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

Grandma is getting pretty mad about this


33 posted on 06/06/2005 7:28:52 AM PDT by woofie ("Plunk your magic twanger, Froggy!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: byteback
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."

Stevens then continued, "But we don't want to hear about any of this crap about the democratic process and the voices of the voters as it applies in the state legislatures or voter initiatives." < /satire on the actual quote, truth on the brown shirt in black robes attitude>

34 posted on 06/06/2005 7:29:04 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Republicans and Democrats no longer exist. There are only Fabian and revolutionary socialists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that Congress had the authority to make it a crime to grow and use marijuana purely for personal medical purposes when recommended by a doctor. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 exceeded Congress' Commerce Clause power when applied to medical marijuana used under California law.

The Court relied, as the Justice Department had urged in its appeal, upon the Court's sweeping endorsement of federal Commerce Clause power in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.

"The case," Stevens wrote, "comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the Act's findings and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progency foreclose that claim."


35 posted on 06/06/2005 7:29:06 AM PDT by Founding Father ( Republicans control the Oval Office, Senate and House, but still can't govern.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aliceburrows

Was that before or after he hung the drapes on the naked statues?


36 posted on 06/06/2005 7:29:18 AM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mikse

Yeah, but not FUN activist liberal judges.


37 posted on 06/06/2005 7:29:30 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mikse
But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges!

This ruling confirms that. Apparently 6 justices didn't read far down enough in the Bill of Rights to see that 10th Amendment thingy. Of course, most of them never have, apparently.

38 posted on 06/06/2005 7:30:37 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drooling moron since 1998...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Grandma is getting pretty mad about this


39 posted on 06/06/2005 7:30:59 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Mister Peanut is not a peanut, he's a legume.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
Woody Harrelson, Cheech, and Chong officially on the run.

Possibly some trolls and posters common on FR as well

40 posted on 06/06/2005 7:31:27 AM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,261-1,272 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson