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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,261-1,272 next last
To: Founding Father
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.

I should have known it would be the Commerce Clause. And they quote one of the worst Supreme Court cases ever. Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio who grew more wheat than he was permitted to under FDR's rules. He argued that he used the wheat to feed animals on his farm and wasn't covered by the commerce clause.

If I was able to sneak into the national archives with a quill pen and a bottle of white out, the top changes I would make to the Constitution would be:

1. Remove the commerce clause.
2. Eliminate the 16th amendment.
3. Remove the militia clause from the 2nd amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
4. Eliminate the 17th amendment. States controlling their senators would provide more protection to the states than directly elected senators.

61 posted on 06/06/2005 7:39:36 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Republicans and Democrats no longer exist. There are only Fabian and revolutionary socialists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

I hope I am reading this decision correctly but it seems once again that liberal activist justices RULE......States RIGHTS are further diminished to a point that makes the 10th Amendment null and void.


62 posted on 06/06/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
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.

Bush administration had appealed 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.

O'Connor backs states In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

“The states’ core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,” said O’Connor, who was joined by other states’ rights advocates.

Excerpt

63 posted on 06/06/2005 7:40:58 AM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Mikse
"But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused.." You think the destruction of state rights isn't a liberal cause?
64 posted on 06/06/2005 7:41:25 AM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
""It will be interesting to see what their Constitutional justification is. A strict reading of the Constitution would not only show that the federales have no authority to rule on marijuana, but that they have no authority over any drugs whether pharmaceutical or recreational. That's one of the powers which "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".""

The government feels it no longer needs justify it's laws Constitutionally. They just need to interpret the Constitution to fit the laws the want to create.
65 posted on 06/06/2005 7:41:33 AM PDT by commonerX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs

I am very disappointed to hear this, there are a lot of people especially those suffering from aids and cancer who find great physical and mental comfort from marijuana, it's a pity the supreme court has no compassion, I'm betting if one of their friends/relatives use this drug for medicinal purposes the ruling would have been different.


66 posted on 06/06/2005 7:41:51 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (If you're not part of the solution, YOU ARE the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
We need to get back our individual state rights

Nothing short of a revolution (bloodless or otherwise) will bring that about. Sometimes I wonder if, by electing Republicans, we're just prolonging the agony. If the liberals got control of everything, surely the revolution would happen sooner.

67 posted on 06/06/2005 7:42:39 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Well, we all know that that users who smoke pot for medical purposes are somehow supporting terrorism. So the ruling is really about protecting the homeland.

/sarcasim

Just in case anyone takes the above personally.


;)
68 posted on 06/06/2005 7:43:02 AM PDT by baltoga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PISANO

It seems often we're angry when the court declares the laws created by congress, and supported by the american people to be unconstitutional. We say the court is legislating from the bench. This time the court has upheld laws created by congress, and supported by the majority of the american people, and we're still angry??


69 posted on 06/06/2005 7:43:06 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: alisasny

Of course! Think of all the jobs that will be created.


70 posted on 06/06/2005 7:43:08 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (McCain or Hillary, two Manchurians in a pod.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
A strict reading of the Constitution would not only show that the federales have no authority to rule on marijuana, but that they have no authority over any drugs whether pharmaceutical or recreational.

They likely based it on a reasonable reading of the commerce clause. The commerce clause is subject to being abused, and in my opinion often has been abused in the past to extend federal power over matters clearly beyond any reasonable interpretation of its reach.

It is also my opinion, and apparently an opinion shared by a majority of the court, that it is not an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause to read it as giving Congress the power to regulate or prohibit the sale or use of marijuana.

Now please note this well: This decision does NOT mean the pro-pot voices have lost the war. It merely means they will have to continue the fight in CONGRESS, and not in the federal courts.

Alternatively, they could try to amend the commerce clause to disempower Congress from legislating in such cases.

The pot heads still have all sorts of options. You should not look to the federal courts for salvation to practice their favorite vice. Debate and persuade, elect and remove. If the facts really are on the pot heads' side, they should win in a walk whether via legislation or by amendment.

That is always the best way in a Republic. That is how it is designed to operate.

71 posted on 06/06/2005 7:43:24 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Men In Black had a statement about how one court case they found against a guy who grew his own wheat to feed his own animals, ruling that if he didn't grow his own he would have to purchase it, so he was "effecting interstate commerce".

Not just any court case. It was Wickard v. Filburn, which the current case used as precedent. FDR's cowed Supreme Court reaches up from the grave and slaps us again.

72 posted on 06/06/2005 7:43:28 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Republicans and Democrats no longer exist. There are only Fabian and revolutionary socialists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
...who grew more wheat than he was permitted to under FDR's rules...

The farmer in question, Wilburn, made a choice to sign up for the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which among other things, paid farmers to only grow certain amounts of crops and livestock.

Like was stated on an earlier thread, you can't have the bacon without the squeal. It was not a good case, but noone put a gun to Wilburn's head and made him sign up in federal government's agricultural program. If he had not, he could have grown all the wheat he wanted and the Feds could not have done a darn thing about it.

73 posted on 06/06/2005 7:43:50 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser
Nobody can tell me that among the jillions of painkillers and herbs out there, nothing can be found as good or better than tripping on pot.

What exactly makes the "jillions" of painkillers, many of which are extremely powerful, have numerous adverse side effects, and are highly addictive, better then medical marijuana, except that the put money into pharmaceutical companies, their lobbyists, and the politicians they buy?

74 posted on 06/06/2005 7:44:30 AM PDT by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: seacapn

...I hope that the DoJ uses its good judgment in this area...

I'm sure they can't wait to beat down the doors of some wheelchair bound MS patients and burn some cancer hospices.


75 posted on 06/06/2005 7:45:34 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (McCain or Hillary, two Manchurians in a pod.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
High Court Sides With States in Pot Case By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

What a terrible headline. The SC has done the exact opposite of siding with the States. Instead it has taken yet another step in allocating every last bit of power to the federal government.

Just another sign that there's nobody left to fight for States' Rights I suppose.

76 posted on 06/06/2005 7:46:01 AM PDT by jtullins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
Another massive sinkhole in "original intent" of the Constitution. The admenments which gave us Prohibition and a few years later its repeal both honored the Constitution.

The federal drug laws have never done so. Hysterical rascist (at the time, early 1900's -- the KKK was redux and ascendant the drug laws were viewed as needed to control the wastrel and violent negro.)

The Federal drug laws are unConstitutional Legislative overreach.

77 posted on 06/06/2005 7:46:04 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All

O'Connor wrote the dissenting opinion. Who are the other 2? Scalia? Thomas?


78 posted on 06/06/2005 7:46:12 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Pot heads? Do you call advocates of religious freedom for for Mormons "Mormon heads?"


79 posted on 06/06/2005 7:46:21 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Eliminate every Amendment after the 15th.


80 posted on 06/06/2005 7:47:39 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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