Feds Over States

[MTI]

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 2:58 PM EDT (1858 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses. In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority (Stevens, Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy). Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

[A264172]

Justice John Paul Stevens who voted with the majority was rumored to have told a reporter: "The government of the United States can not be bound by the doobieious descisions of the governments of the states"

[Botnst]

No tokin' this year.

[A264172]

Justice Scalia stated: "We took a great deal more time than is usual to argue the points of our rulling to the minority so that we might avoid the Spliff decision that ultimately transpired."

[Botnst]

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me
You've been holding it an awful long time
....

Every decade since the 1960's I've thought, "This is it, they finally have it figured-out. I will soon be smoking dope again after a XX year hiatus."

Every decade nature produces a whole new set of dumbasses who can't tell civil liberty from crime.

Maybe in the 20-teens?

[boneheaddoctor]

the liberals are craping in their shorts now.....but they are too stoned to realize it.

[Hogweed]

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

the liberals are craping in their shorts now.....but they are too stoned to realize it.

that is totally absurd, bhd. i rarely, if ever, get so stoned that i don't notice the crap in my shorts.....hey, wait a second!

[A264172]

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats
floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tene- ment roofs
illuminated,
-Ginsberg

[neanderthal]

Old school conservatism - emphasis on personal liberty, restrained government, strict construction of the Constitution, and fiscal responsibility.

Looking at the current government, we need to kick out the conservatives and bring in some, err, conservatives. Wait...

taken from another board.

[wbain5280]

Ahh, yea! Federal law superceeds State law. If the states pass medical marijuana laws, people can still be proscecuted by the Feds.

[koop]

The best part of the decision, for me, were the dissents. The Chief and Thomas both wrote dissents, which in true conservative nature, talked about the founders intent and the law 200 years ago.

But they forgot the to mention that pot was legal 200 years ago. If we are going to base our laws today on anachronistic BS and try to figure out what Madison would do, go all the way and recognize that Washington grew hemp, it was legal, and the "founders intent" and practice was that it was legal.

Not to mention that the prevailing contitutional thought back in "the good ol days" was that the government couldn't tell a person what to consume. That's why prohibition had to be a constitutional amendment and early drug laws were based on tax theory. The gov had the power to tax, not outlaw possession of things.

[boneheaddoctor]

But 200 years ago they were making rope with it....and even then it was a mere fraction of its curent potency so smoking to get stoned was not what most people did with it...

[djugurba]

Bone,
you've got to be kidding, right? drugs were all over the place in the 1700s and 1800s.

[Lebenz]

So just when was it that the USA stopped being a shining example of progressive ideology?

[boneheaddoctor]

Originally Posted by djugurba

Bone,
you've got to be kidding, right? drugs were all over the place in the 1700s and 1800s.

cocain yes, opiates yes....not crappy pot...hell when I was in Highschool a jont would get two people stoned....these days a joint would get 20 people stoned...200 Hiundred years ago with the Hemp they used you would have to smoke all day long to get a case of the munchies much less stoned.