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.

[eleni121]

"GO SOON TO BE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BROWN!!! "

---

Pardon?

[excludethis]

See this article for truth about the liberal vote on this case. GO SOON TO BE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BROWN!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1394155/posts?page=68#68

[seacapn]

there are many more effective drugs and drug therapies for these patients.

I think it's presumptuous for you to dictate to the sick that they can't use the natural, herbal form of an acknowledged medicine (THC)

[Quinotto]

Eleni, in case u forgot, I am board certified in Oncology. I will never tell a patient not to use MJ if he/she so desires simply because I have seen with my own eyes the benefits. I am more worried about what alcohol does to our society than MJ simply because I also know first hand the cases from the trauma centers where dead and injured drivers and passengers were the result of drinking and not MJ. ALL drugs have side effects, some of them very serious adverse reactions and yet they are on the market and FDA approved. Knowing what we know today about acetaminophen, this drug would not have been approved by FDA today. I am eager to bet that sildenafil will never be pulled off the market despite the latest reports of causing blindness simply because it will be not something our beloved congressmen want. And I could keep going on to no end.

[libertarianben]

Yep, we libertarians have this freedom complex thing. We have a weird idea that government should get out of people's wallets and stay out of their bedrooms. We also have another one where we run the government like the Constitution is actually written.

BTW I have never did illegal drugs, smoked and rarely drink. I just think people have the right to help or hurt their own bodies as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I weird like that.

[anticommunist8]

That depends on the definition of liberal. The 18th century liberals of Britain were divided between religious Christians against the established Church and free marketers. The conservatives were protectionists and pro-clergy.

So the temperance and prohibition movements of the US were tied to the liberal movement of Britain. However, their followers now make up the backbone of the GOP.

Personally, I think deciding what's liberal and what's not is pretty dumb. Liberal in the US means leftist, liberale in France means capitalist. It's just too loose a word.

The Federal Government has no jurisdiction over the states on this issue, that's my view.

[Quinotto]

There is no need to get nasty...really!

[derheimwill]

What? Fist you're practically pro-KKK, then walting over the rainbow to Give-Peace-A-Chance-Land? Who hired you for comic relief?










...:)

[hoosierham]

Over-reaching gov't authority is far more likely to pose a danger to my life than someone smoking an herb produced in his backyard. Why , if anyone could do it,there would be no PROFIT in it,no TAX in it,no need for SMUGGLING,no need for more and more jails where the more vicious can teach others to prey by example. No need for ever more fancy police toys like helo patrols at 500 feet spying on your garden and backyard,no need for thermal imaging peering into your home (hey,if anybody who wanted could grow the herb ,then few would buy it, so growing more than a small amount would be a waste of time. Gardeners soon learn not to plant too many cucumber or tomatoes!)

Why the cops could concentrate on solving murders,thefts,and crimes actually committed by one person against another;instead they spend their efforts enforcing all thec laws of offenses against the state,meaning revenue collection in nefarious ways.

All that gov't power and tools to control those "potheads" can just as easily be used against freepers,gun owners,stamp collectors, or any group someone in authority dislikes.

[sbush278]

Ok, I'm not a smoker (prescribed or otherwise), but how is this constitutional? Are we going to go after gambling and prostitution next (I bet Nevada would just *love* that)!

[Quinotto]

Sorry Eleni, that was meant to Ham!

[chuckwalla]

This ruling should also apply to the 2d amendment in that states cannot pass gun control laws that violate the federal constitution of the peoples right not to be infringed.
They said the federal law is SUPREME OVER THE STATES.

[Quinotto]

Myself, I gave up pot a long time ago because after a while it just made me sleepy and stupid.

So you are awake now!!!! What happened to the "stupid" part? (JUST KIDDING, really, I would have picked on you, DU or FR alike).

[robertpaulsen]

"Justice Thomas' dissent is top-notch"

His argument is thus: 2 + 2 = 4 ..... but it shouldn't.

His argument flies in the face of all logic. To wit:

"They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California. It never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction."

Uh, theoretically, yes.

"California's Compassionate Use Act ... channels marijuana use to seriously ill Californians"

Uh-huh. And to not-so-seriously-ill Californians and somewhat-ill Californians, and kinda-maybe-ill Californians and to any Californian who has a headache and can get a "doctor's" recommendation.

"California strictly controls the cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes."

Or so they say.

On and on. Nice theory, Justice Thomas, but theory and reality are, in this case, widely divergent.

Now Scalia's comments, on the other hand, are right on the money.

[derheimwill]

ph... Getlost!

[eleni121]

"I think it's presumptuous for you to dictate to the sick that they can't use the natural, herbal form of an acknowledged medicine (THC)"

---

Your point says nothing. Rattlesnake venom/poison ivy etc. are natural as well...doesn't mean we should use it although I'm sure some quacks out there do. The THC part - delta 9 tetrhydrocannabinol varies in toxicity - and can cause irreparable harm in those who are using.

http://www.marijuana-detox.com/m-dangers.htm

[excludethis]

Appeals Court Just Holding Spot For Brown: Article on Brown:

Though most Americans support Social Security and the other workers' protections that grew out of the New Deal, Brown holds to a peculiar constitutional view that dismisses the New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution."

Speaking to the Chicago chapter of the Federalist Society five years ago, she said, "The New Deal . . . inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document."

[eleni121]

MYOB!

[HKMk23]

>But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges!

That perception should not be mitigated by this ruling. The Supreme Court has, today, simply recapitulated one of the worst rulings in its history, WICKARD v. FILBURN, the summary of which you may read here.

This ruling essentially established that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution has no effective boundary thereby subjugating any object, with even the most tenuous connection to interstate commerce, to the direct control of Congress.