[wingnutx]

Clarence Thomas had it absolutely right.

[agitator]

If the weed is produced within a state and used within a state, the fedz should have nothing to say about it

[ProudVet77]

The interesting this is that the "drug" libs now are in a poisition of support strict constitutionalism.

[muawiyah]

Shame to have to waste a perfectly good States' Rights argument on this issue. MJ has no value even if it's believers think it does.

[El Gato]

States don't have rights, they have powers, as does the Federal Government. However powers of the states are many, while those of the federales are limited to those specifically granted to them in the Constitution. I don't see anything in there about regulating intrastate commerce in Pot, or anything else for that matter. Growing for your own use isn't even commerce,let alone intestate commerce.

[veeceeque]

State's rights are an anachronism in today's federal government. They have been dying a slow death for decades. The fed pi**es on the graves of the Framers every single time.

I can only dream of Texas succeeding from the US someday LOL.

[fish hawk]

I just love it because it pisses off Libertarians, and old hippies. If in fact they are two different animals.

[Sun Soldier]

I think this decision is humorous in that one of the opinions said something to the effect that if they allow medicinal use of pot, crooked doctors would be writing false perscriptions. What a crock. We can't stop the tons of the stuff that comes into the country or is grown here and they're actually worried that doctors writing bad perscriptions is going to have some kind of major impact? Please. Americans consume tons of pot. I can't believe we haven't legalized it just for the tax revenue... never mind how popular it is.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

"State's Rights" are whatever the federal government delegates to them, which are whatever the federal court says is okay.

There really has been no such thing as "rights" since well before the Civil War, at least since Dred Scot federalized southern slaveholding and imposed it on the northern states.

[mukraker]

If we are a country that follows our Constitution, as written, even including Amendments, then the federal government has no legal authority to dictate to We, the People, what we ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce voluntarily into our own bodies. Yes, they have the power to regulate the commerce of goods, across State lines, but not, as was in this case [Gonzalez v Raich (03-1454)] within a State.

Before I continue, I want to stress that I am not advocating the use of any drug. But I believe in our Constitution, and I think we need to return to the idea of strictly following the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was not written to give the People rights. Those come to us from God. The Constitution was written so that we, the People, could delegate certain limited powers to our federal government, and to prohibit that government from exercising powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

If we allow our federal government the power to dictate as such, then they can also tell us one day sugar is outlawed, simply because there was a "scientific" study that showed it to be bad for us. Ditto for corn, as one of it's derivitives (corn syrup) when added to food, can cause obesity if taken in large quantities. They could make it illegal to grow poppies, because the plant can be processed into a dangerous drug.

Or they could tell you that you couldn't drink alcohol. Oops, wait a minute. That one was tried, wasn't it? Only, n the case of prohibition, it was done properly, legally, through a constitutional amendment, which granted the government the specific power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. Notice that not even that amendment prohibited the consumption of alcohol. If you had alcohol in your house prior to the enactment of the 18th Amendment, technically you could still legally consume it.

If marijuana is so terrible, and we, as a nation, want to outlaw it on a national basis, let's do it legally, with a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by We, the People. Otherwise, I want my government to stay out of my life. Whatever you or I choose to do in the privacy of our homes, is our business, not the government's.

The Supreme Court has been wrong before. It was wrong this time.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The commerce clause authorized Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not everthing that "affects" interstate commerce, which is everything, and not everything the Supreme Court says affects interstate commerce.

[SteveMcKing]

"Medical marijuana, like it or not was legalized in California by initiative."

Well you should have spoken up 145 years ago when the Civil War was fought to decide how government would operate.

Too late!

[etcetera]

The only way for this to change is by massive civil disobedience. Have tens of thousands of people show up at DEA offices across the country and light up doobies, on the same day at the same time. Swamp the federal justice system with marijauana arrests.

Maybe then the feds will realize their time is better spent protecting our borders and chasing real terrorists.

[GOP_Raider]

As a conservative, I am going with State's Rights.

I am too, and it seems like the best way to solve the "problem" of legalizing mary jane. If California wants to legalize it--and clearly the voters in Cali did so--then they can. If, say, Wyoming doesnt, then that should be up to the voters there.

Jeez, what's it gonna take for the 10th Amendment to actually be applied in the High court, another Civil War?