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 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 1,261-1,272 next last
To: libertarianben
Let me give you my answer to a question I've been asked a few times.
When I mention my strong belief in the Second Admendment as plainly written,several white men have asked me,a white man, if I want all the "gasp" blacks armed. To which my reply has been for years , and remains,: "Why not, as long as all the white,red,green,yellow, and any other are too. Because the bad guys will always have weapons regardless of the laws and the LACK of weapons by the good people is what enables bad gangs and bad governments to exist."
To: robertpaulsen
By that logic, wouldn't diet fads have effects on 'interstate commerce'?
862
posted on
06/06/2005 8:24:36 PM PDT
by
seacapn
To: missyme
"DO you really think the FDA wants to Cure Cancer or MS Healthcare is Big Buisness and they make no money from Marijuana ... "We have a winner! Your award:
To: libertarianben
Being able to laugh at oneself is sometimes good for the soul.
And you are more correct than you knew.
To: derheimwill
A 3rd party? Me?
FOFLOL!!!
What have you been smoking??
865
posted on
06/06/2005 8:28:44 PM PDT
by
HKMk23
(Ladies, "No" should not mean "No"; it should mean "Don't even THINK it or I'll for real KILL you!")
To: hoosierham
I agree with you. I was talking about something else.
866
posted on
06/06/2005 8:31:52 PM PDT
by
libertarianben
(Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
To: newgeezer
'm coming closer and closer to moving to another country. Which one? You might want to consider New Zealand - a former socialist dump that underwent a libertarian transformation a few years ago. It now not only has an economy once again, but retains a lot of personal freedoms that Americans have lost.
The downside: a still-powerful Green movement.
To: excludethis
"The court gave the ruling after FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court if ..."The rulings in The Shreveport Rate Cases occurred 20 years prior to FDR and dealt with the substantial effect of intrastate rates on interstate commerce.
"The previous 150 years of court precedent was that the Federal Government could not regulate commerce unless it crossed state lines."
Just because they didn't doesn't mean they couldn't.
To: hoosierham
"And you are more correct than you knew."
I usually am.
869
posted on
06/06/2005 8:33:25 PM PDT
by
libertarianben
(Looking for sanity and his hard to find cousin common sense)
To: Born in a Rage
Yeah but today's ruling will just make people go back in closed doors to smoke pot nothing new..
The WOD is a massive failure and maybe the next generation of Judges will have the smarts to turn this controversy around...
870
posted on
06/06/2005 8:34:58 PM PDT
by
missyme
(Tell it like it is!)
To: robertpaulsen
871
posted on
06/06/2005 8:35:43 PM PDT
by
missyme
(Tell it like it is!)
To: BlazingArizona
That's a red herring. Border control is properly a matter for the Feds, falling under national defense and therefore being specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
A better argument: in general, states shold be able to set their own policy in any area that does not prevent other states from choosing differently. If Arizona were to start letting illegal aliens in without restriction, the right of neighboring states that may wish to set different policies would be infringed. But one state allowing patients to grow their own wacky weed, no interstate commmerce involved, does not affect the right of neighboring states to be more restrictive.An excellent point. Scary, too - the Feds no longer need even the appearance of interstate commerce to interfere in states' matters. States' rights have been dealt a blow today, a very severe blow.
To: chuckwalla
Yeah spend there money looking for HOT Spots while terrorists climb the border fences, WOW the Feds working at there finest!
873
posted on
06/06/2005 8:37:30 PM PDT
by
missyme
(Tell it like it is!)
To: Doe Eyes
I agree, it is funny to see a desired outcome turns liberals into conservatives and vice versa.
874
posted on
06/06/2005 8:37:31 PM PDT
by
NavVet
(“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
To: LAURENTIJ
There's plenty of good alternate methods available. I'd rather have my 12 guage take away the pain if it got bad enough. If I had a terminal disease, the legality of any palliative my doctor and I decide on would not even enter into my decision. It's my disease, not some judge's. But I would definitely value that 12-gauge, in case I need to defend my decision against your goons.
To: derheimwill
To: KarlInOhio
What part of the constitution says that it's illegal for the federal governement to make a law regarding the legality of Marijuana?
I'm at the beach on vacation and am feeling too lazy to do my own research.
thanks!
877
posted on
06/06/2005 8:42:43 PM PDT
by
Cosmo
(Liberalism is for girls)
To: libertarianben
Blame it on the school system,they only taught me and my classmates the names and dates and little or none of the why.Independent reading filled in some of the gaps but never forget that the winners publish the history books.
HOWEver one fascinating book almost suggests a certain English general and his brother Admiral botched their side of the Revolutionary War in order to secretly help the colonists.I think few wars are fought over the main stated reason,it's always a complex mix with greed and power lust heavily represented.That doesn't mean some of the leaders orcombatants aren't vile and reprehensible.
To: missyme
You and your conspiracy theories.
To: robertpaulsen
You said: "He could have grown his allotted share, sold some to market and kept some for home use. But he got greedy [and wouldnt give any to market]."
880
posted on
06/06/2005 8:46:40 PM PDT
by
derheimwill
(Love is a person, not an emotion.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860, 861-880, 881-900 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson