I've never subscribed to all of this "medical" marijuana crap. It's just a subterfuge to legalize marijuana in stages. 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.
The process of legalizing marijuana has begun in the same way as legalizing euthanasia: first, a few really extreme and sympathetic cases of suffering, and then on to mainstreaming it. Look at Holland, where the old, the sick, and even children whom doctors do not deem worthy of life are now being put to death involuntarily.
I applaud the Supreme Court's decision.
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.
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.
Well, I am disappointed. This is about the only thing I agree with the libertarians on.
Good luck with that.
I'm coming closer and closer to moving to another country.
Doritos and Pringles brands will see a slump in stock price today.
THANKS GOODNESS - now, once again, the country will be safe.
\Sarcasm
I'm not surprised from a legal standpoint but I think it's somewhat wrong from just an old common sense perspective.
They do exactly the same on gun laws. An ex-felon is allowed to have a firearm after application in many Southern and Mountain states but God forbid a federal park barney or ATF stop ya. 5 year min-man.
Guess ya'll settled State's Rights 150 years ago..lol
Does anyone know how Thomas ruled on this?
That's not a surprise. The law must be changed at the federal level.
"In the U.S., we are creating Communism with American characteristics."
National Review Online/The Corner
COUNT ME WITH THE LIBERTARIANS ON THIS ONE. [Mark R. Levin]
I don't support the widespread legalization of drugs. 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.
Posted at 11:27 AM
What about the bong loading freepers?
All the Court said was that Congress has the power to trump state law on this issue, using a Constitutional theory that hatched in the '30s in order to allow the New Deal to pass muster.
It appears some old fossils in DC are spouting gibberish again - gibberish increasingly ignored by the American people.
It turns out that Thomas and Rehnquist in dissent were, in fact, challenging almost 60 years of liberal Supreme Court rulings holding that the federal government can regulate commerce WITHIN states. If a majority had ruled that way, the entire New Deal would have been called into question.
lots of high fives at the doj today!
And now it's time to bust some heads on those dope smokin sickos with cancer and MS!
Break out the grenades boys!
6-3
Voting Yes: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer (I think that's his name)
Voting No: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas.