SCOTUS rules against medical marijuana patients and states rights

[Fire]

Terrible News, I just heard it on CNN, their web page doesn't have an article about it yet.


Keep an eye on this page
http://www.cnn.com/LAW/

[Roland99]

Joy.

[trotsky]

1. You said the key words: states' rights.

Any Democrat near a camera should get in front of it and ask why the self-described party of states' rights would let the big bad federal government dictate policy.

[Fire]

5. ugh

Right Wingers and Republicans have never been in favor of states rights or of reducing the size of the federal government, especially now that they are in charge of it. They just use those things when it helps them spread their fascist agenda like opposing desegregation or abolishing aid to the needy.

Expecting any party to voluntarily give away power is the government fighting the size of government with more government which is just like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

[dmr]

35. You're right, but not the people

Right wing voters are in favor of state rights trumping the Feds. I'm sure that's what the previous poster meant.

We know the current cartel is all about control.

As each right is stripped away, a few of their grassroot supporters might wisen up. It's been known to happen. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[RatRacer]

54. You guys do realize...

That only Scalia (among the courts more conservative members) went with the majority opinion on this? Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor were the three dissenters. The most liberal judges on the court, including Stevens and Ginsberg were with the majority.

While I understand the sentiment, it's the ones normally on our side that we need to mad at this time.

[SRSU]

82. Nope they are not

"Right wing voters are in favor of state rights trumping the Feds"

They are only in favor of this when dems control the fed gov.

[dbonds]

55. They only want states rights when they aren't in control of the fed.

In that case they need the states to get what they want. Now that they are in control of the fed the states would be subverting what they want. I think we are basically the same way too.

[Massacure]

110. I wouldn't say never.

Republicans used to be fiscally responsable and socially liberal. They are the exact opposite now.

[SRSU]

81. Do you really believe that crap?

Repubs don't care about states rights. They only started that shit in the 90s when dems controlled the fed government. They wanted repub states to be immune from federal law dems passed. That is ALL they meant by "states rights".

[MojoXN]

2. Well, there's a surprise...

The presidential selection committee making a blatantly partisan ruling in violation of Constitutional principles. It won't be the last time, I'm sure.

MojoXN

[Karenina]

34. NOT! Complete explanation here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3783153

[dmr]

36. Thanks for linking that thread

I'm off to read it now.

[Mitt Chovick]

39. Partisan? The three opposed where Thomas, Renquist & O'Connor

Amazing. Ain't it?

[DanCa]

3. "Medical" Marijuana

Did I tell you how much I hate these people today?

[Fire]

12. Yes it is indeed [b]medical[/b] marijuana

Which people are you refering too? The government has no business being in this war on (some) drugs.

[LiberallyInclined]

62. i think the anger is directed at the court-

the poster highlighted "medical" to make the point that it was not "recreational".

[Zhade]

68. Self-delete.

NT!

[bemildred]

4. The right of the Feds to meddle with medical care must be protected. nt

[MojoXN]

7. Off topic, but...

I've been wondering for a while now, what does nt or n/t stand for? I'm usually pretty good at figuring out DU acronyms, but this one has me stymied.

MojoXN

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

9. no text

it means the message is only in the "title" and theres nothing in the body

[bicentennial_baby]

11. It means

"No Text"

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. heres the direct link

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html

awful :evilfrown:

[Fire]

27. ugh

"Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
......
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, California, has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard."

Stevens told a teriminally ill person to wait for the democratic process before taking their medicine.

[meow2u3]

31. Bushco has to fill up those corporate concentration camps

In Bush's America, it's government by the corporation, of the corporation, and for the corporation. They just can't let sick people get better without the fat cats getting a piece of the action :eyes:

[kodi]

57. replace "medical pot smokers" with "negroes" & stevens' position is absurd

stevens' remark below is remarkably akin to those who insisted that equal rights for blacks must be done thru the legislature and not by judicial fiat such as brown v. topeka, ks board of education.

"but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

it is clear that this issue has been poisoned by the "drug war" rhetoric and had this been any other issue, such as abortion or minority rights, the majority justices would have voted the other way.

[0rganism]

67. but Stevens' decision is legally consistent w/ Brown v. BE Topeka

(BE = Board of Education)

Brown v. Board of Education overturned the earlier Plessy v. Ferguson precedent, which had allowed states flexibility to apply "separate but equal" statutory regs to bypass the 14th amendment. To rule otherwise would have put Stevens in the analogous position of enabling Jim Crow as well as medical marijuana. Ironically, by dissenting, Justice Thomas is actually favoring the position that supported the very laws which would have oppressed blacks in his youth.

Stevens is correct. Federal trumps state law, as it must if we are to preserve such niceties as federal environmental regulations on a national scale.

[kodi]

80. brown refernced a federal right denied, not a state recognizing a new one

the states and their jim crow laws undermined a federal right by state action, this case involved a state recognizing a right not enummerated by federal codification and that would fall under the 9th amendment.

[0rganism]

93. Would you have preferred the annullment of the FDA? How about the EPA?

Remember, the constitutionality of all these drug laws and environmental laws and food safety laws and consumer protection regulations derive from implicit extensions to the explicit authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. Anemic as they have become under bush, are you really ready to forego the protections they afford entirely? Because that's exactly the kind of future judgment that can be extracted from the precedent set by such a decision.

[kodi]

100. does either of your examples deal with personal, private matters?

both the FDA and EPA are easily argued to be under the penumbra of the commerce clause, since both regulate commerce, however the majority in this case, and as illustrated by Stevens' remarks have stretched the meaning of the commerce clause beyond recognition to include personal growing of pot for medical use as having an impact on the national pot market, albeit an illegal one and is thus under the commerce clause.

that is awfully tenuous thinking and opens up all sorts of devilry.

it is profoundly disappointing to see such twisting of the commerce clause to achieve particular result. it implies that because of the commerce clause even personal and private behavior can be regulated at the federal level.

one can easily see how such a devious interpretation of the commerce clause would help fortify a national antigay marriage law. it would be found legal simply because marriage is a contract regulated by the states and there is the good faith clause between the states that marriage contracts would be honored outside of the state where the marriage contract was signed.

[0rganism]

101. Sure they do

E.g., environmental laws could restrict the abilities of private landowners to clearcut their property if a certain species of owl or frog happens to live on it.

Allegedly, marijuana suppression is also of public value -- hell, it probably polls higher than preserving spotted owl habitat in some states. And if you think issuing growers' permits doesn't affect the overall market supply of marijuana and other items, you'd be wrong. Suppose the registered users could not get legal marijuana, what would they do? Clearly, some of them would buy illegally anyway, probably for a higher price. Others would turn to big pharma for whatever synthetic crap they could get. Either way, certain markets would be affected, even disregarding instances of permit abuse where "registered" marijuana ends up going to people who don't need it. So one way or another, the federal gov't can make a solid case that marijuana production is commerce.

So is the commerce clause a can of very stretchy worms? Hell yeah, I agree with you there. But some of those worms are very helpful, and I would hope we're careful about which ones we throw away.

The best way to solve this problem is to have the marijuana suppression laws legislatively altered or rescinded at the federal level. Trying to sneak around them by way of state-by-state medical use is not going to address the core problem, which is the Marijuana Tax Act and its various corollaries that create a black market and reinforce an informal caste system. And it is that core problem which bit us in the ass today.

[kodi]

103. you are switching your argument

initially you declared the FDA and EPA at risk from the minority's view of states rights, then switched to a discussion of environmental laws that affect property rights, not personal rights. these are not the same thing.

the societal valuation on the use of medical pot was not the issue, nor was it the debatable point. it was whether or not a person could grow it for personal medicinal purposes. there were no property rights issues involved.

and the thrust of the reasoning of the majority is that affection of interstate commerce/trafficing sets off the commerce clause of federalism and overrides state policies.

those who have used both pot and the synthetic thc substitute reject the latter out of hand as useless. so there is no acknowleged pressure on the legal market there. in this case no argument can be made that interstate commerce would be affected (i have to reject those who point to big pharma drug substitutes because those who smoke pot for pain relief do not use the legal marinol available, precisely because it is ineffective).

however, having the court use as a ploy that the blackmarket would be affected is indefensible since the court's action actually enforces a law that makes the blackmarket more lucrative, which is the antithesis of what the other laws intend on this issue.

further, there is no documentation that shows clearly any impact on interstate trafficing of blackmarket weed caused by home grown weed for medicinal purposes.

the majority just said there was, without any evidence to support this position.

the commerce clause referring to interstate commerce has always meant legal commerce. how the court brings into this an argument that allowing a person to grow their own medicine causes harm to illegal enterprises and is therefore itself illegal is beyond reason.

[0rganism]

105. Not at all, but we are looking at it from different angles

Starting at the end and rewinding, you say,
> the commerce clause referring to interstate commerce has always meant legal commerce.

This cannot be the case, as it is within the federal government's purview to declare some types of commerce illegal and restrict them as such. Really, how else could the government enforce its regulation of said commerce? Is, "We banned it, so we can no longer prevent it," a supportable position? Would you like it to apply to, say, weapons-grade plutonium? Doesn't matter, this position was gutted in US v. Darby:
"The power to regulate commerce is the power 'to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed'. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196. It extends not only to those regulations which aid, foster and protect the commerce, but embraces those which prohibit it." (312 US 100, 113)

> there is no documentation that shows clearly any impact on interstate
> trafficing of blackmarket weed caused by home grown weed for medicinal purposes

I'll go one step further: even if there were such documentation, I would immediately consider it suspect, and wager that any competent attorney could challenge its validity. However, that is not the issue at hand. The SCOTUS has set precedent that the federal government has the authority to regulate commerce, including intrastate manufacturing activities that could affect the enforcement of said regulations.

> i have to reject those who point to big pharma drug substitutes
> because those who smoke pot for pain relief do not use the legal
> marinol available, precisely because it is ineffective

Of course, marinol is not the only big-pharma drug poised to compete with cannabis for these purposes. Those who were using marijuana for pain relief of back injuries, for instance, could be construed as vacating the Vicodin and Hydrocodone markets. The comparative effectiveness of marijuana is not the issue at hand, although it may provide the leverage that eventually reschedules marijuana out of the CSA.

> the thrust of the reasoning of the majority is that affection of
> interstate commerce/trafficing sets off the commerce clause of
> federalism and overrides state policies.

Yes, it does. And this is definitely not the angle from which we should be attacking, as it puts entire bodies of regulatory law at risk. The correct approach, as Stevens notes, is to change federal law, which is the job of the elected congress.

> it was whether or not a person could grow it for personal medicinal
> purposes. there were no property rights issues involved.

I disagree, categorically. In fact, the appeal to the court stems from destruction of Diane Monson's property by the DEA. In this case, the commerce clause is considered not solely with respect to the specific instance of Monson's crop, but to an entire class of activities of which Monson's marijuana plants were a part. The Controlled Substances Act is upheld as constitutional, and this was not even contested by Raich or Monson. Therefore the only question was whether the federal government had authority to enforce the CSA without the support of state law.

[madmark]

109. I complement you on being able to understand that this is about the

broad interpretation of the scope of the commerce clause and not supremacy, which is what a lot of people here apparently think. That said, I disagree with the Court's decision as it recognizes no limit to the scope of the commerce clause and continues in a long line of case rendering the 9th and 10 amendments nullities (like 70 years worth). That's why we needed the prohibion amendment in the 20's because it predated the expansive view of the commerce clause. What right should not be reserved more to a person (9th amendment) than the right to put what they want in their body.

[BlueIris]

8. Great. Just great. And I had been optimistic about the potential

outcome of this case. That is...not making my day.

[sdfernando]

10. More compassion??

This is going to play well when they have some cancer patient die in the courtroom.

[Supersedeas]

13. Odd how States rights Justices have flipped since Bush v. Gore decision

[ElectroPrincess]

16. And the courts are sure to go further right when * once again gets his way

and all his freaky far right wing judges are approved. We can thank the gutless wonder known as Senator Biden for both that and "Mr. Wonderful" (John Bolton) confirmed as 1 each, USA Diplomat Extra-ordinaire. The corporate media is quoting Biden constantly as if HE not DEAN were our spokesman.

[bling bling]

89. Yes, very interesting isn't it.

Funny how the party that practically runs on a platform of keeping the federal government out of the states rights uses the Federal Government to bully the states when they disagree with the state laws.

The same party that wants a federal amendment on gay marriage.

THE REPUBLICANS STAND FOR NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[liberaliraqvet26]

14. anybody know if it was 5-4???

[TahitiNut]

29. It was 6-3. (Durn revenoors!)

:shrug:

[grytpype]

15. This really is not controversial.

It's just the principle that federal law is supreme, if the states want to decrim that doesn't affect Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. That is, state law does not trump federal law.

[ElectroPrincess]

18. Yes it is, it's undue FEDERAL power over the states ...

This is absurd and well, just cruel. People who are seriously ill deserve to have access to any "useful" medication that will lessen their pain. The Supremes are Power Hungry Ghouls!

[grytpype]

20. Sorry, but the Constitution is pretty clear about this.

Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce and federal law is supreme. Justice Stewart is saying, and this is legally correct, that this is a matter left to Congress and Congress can change it.

[Occulus]

26. If it's grown, distributed, and used in ONE STATE,

how exactly does that touch interstate commerce?

Oh, and while you're at it, explain to me why the federal government operates and maintains marijuana farms, yet nobody else can. Also, explain to me how the federal government can justify this, in light of this decision.

[TahitiNut]

32. If moonshine is grown, distilled and sold in one state ...

... then how can the ATF "revenoors" step in and destroy the stills an arrest the moonshiners? This isn't a new issue. Once upon a time (Prohibition), folks obtained their booze by 'prescription' at the local pharmacy.

[Mothrog2]

102. Just because it's been done for a while doesn't make it right

Following your logic, the internment of American citizens at Gitmo is perfectly legal. Under Korematsu v. US, a unanimous decision that still stands to this day, what Bush is doing is perfectly legal. This ridiculous view that interstate commerce includes everything under the sun, including things that never enter interstate commerce, is so ludicrous it's unbelievable. If moonshine (or in this case, pot) produced locally for private consumption constitutes interstate commerce, just what the hell is excluded from that definition?

[JRob]

46. and you know that Corp Drugs Companies are in on this too... nt

[DemoTex]

63. What Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma gets.

Medicinal marijuana is a threat to their proprietary ca$h cows, just like "alternative energy sources" are a threat to Big Oil's obscene profit machine. Don't fuck with Big Pharma or Big Oil; they own Bu$hco.

[Zhade]

69. Actually, marijuana + hemp are a double threat.

One to Big Pharm, the other to the oil, textile, paper, and a myriad of other industries.

I'm positive both will be legal at some point from sheer necessity. Until then, we'll continue to jail innocent nonviolent people who happen to use a beneficial plant for a variety of uses.

Can't get to Canada fast enough...

[JRob]

76. word... nt

[Webster Green]

19. There is no interstate commerce involved....

The Federal government should have no authority in these cases. There is no federal law against possession or use.

[grytpype]

21. I'm pretty sure there is a federal law against possession.

Possession, sale, manufacture, all illegal. Sad but true.

[ElectroPrincess]

25. I don't know either, however, while the rest of the civilized world

becomes more humanitarian (universal health care, no death penalty executions, no illegal detentions, etc.), the USA, Our so called Paramour of DEMOCRACY is tacitly supporting torture and openly promoting executions. And now, promoting the prosecution of the most needy of our population, TERMINALLY ILL and CANCER PATIENTS, arrested and put on trial for smoking marijuana.

What's wrong with the above? Right, we are becoming a cruel and insensitive country full of "wild west cowboys." As a civilized nation, we are in a tail-spin regression of all we hold morally sacred.

All masqueraded in the name of God. Smoke and mirrors.

Damn! :(

[anarchy1999]

113. Schiavo, anyone? n/t

n/t

[Fire]

28. but the issue here is that

The federal law is unconstitutional because it is based on a bad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

[ElectroPrincess]

30. So what, who's going to make them adhere to the Constitution?

Nobody. We are being ruled by right wing republicans for the duration, i.e., until the sheeple get their fill and demand otherwise. Let's pray that happens sooner rather than later?

[Webster Green]

37. You are incorrect, sir.

The federal statutes have been limited to interstate commerce and taxation.

[MojoXN]

24. From the link:

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.


I would say that this has NOTHING to do with interstate commerce. It's just more judicial partisanship. Just because the federal government takes a position on an issue does not automatically abrogate the power of the states to take a dissimilar position. Check the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The SCOTUS needs to start interpreting the Constitution without political bias.

MojoXN

[Maat]

64. The Commerce Clause applies frequently to purely intrastate .

activities; Congress may regulate activities which occur purely in-state due to the aggregate effect on the national activity. See "Wickard v. Filburn," 317 US 111 (1942).

We also are a party to international treaties involving marijuana, and these treaties are a part of our law.

[Zhade]

71. And of course those laws and treaties banning its use are wrong.

But I know you know this.

[Maat]

85. Oh, yeah. Just being a wisenheimer and commenting on the law.

I believe that medical use of marijuana is a no-brainer; it should be permitted.

But, NEVER argue that Congress can't do something - it's just a losing argument 99% of the time.

That's all I'm saying.

By the way, it just seems unbelievably cruel to me to deny suffering people effective medical treatment.

Shame on them (again).

[Zhade]

94. Really? Then I declare there is no way Congress can make marijuana legal!

(Or does that only work AGAINST us?)

[Maat]

104. Yeah, I think that it is definitely within Congress' power to ..

in cooperation with the executive branch and the states, to (1) see that the treaties are changed, (2) decriminalize use and minor possession to the point where it is no worse than a ticket, and (3) permit the medical prescription of the drug.

There is no excuse for that happening now.

That having been said, as a retired social worker, there should be rules - just like there are for alcohol use. I say to all drug/medication/alchohol users, "Please don't get in a car and drive if the substance impairs your judgment. For your sake, my sake, my family's sake, and society's sake." "And, if you are a parent, if your medication/drug-use/alchohol-use affects your judgment negatively, please arrange for someone else to mind your child while you are under the influence, so that my sister or one of my friends does not have to respond to an accident scene, in which your child died due to your negligence, the result of your use/abuse."

I responded to more scenes in which a child died or was seriously injured (as a social worker) because the parent's judgment and ability being impaired due to their medication/drug/alcohol use/abuse. I'm still haunted to this day by that.

But I think that, if we continue to work on the above, it will all work out.

[TankLV]

99. What they said on NPR this morning is that because SOME pot goes accross

state lines somewhere at some time, even if they don't know it, not necessarily a particular plant, that in effect affects ALL pot EVERYWHERE. At least that is the logic of their thinking, however faulty it is.

[shimmergal]

95. But-- but--

the link with "Interstate Commerce" is very weak, especially in those states where patients can and do grow their own pot. There's _no_ commerce involved in this! What's the use of having so-called "distinguoished legal minds" on the Court if they don't even realize this?

[dbt]

17. Question Time:

What are we not supposed to notice while we're busy being outraged by this move?

(Do I mean to imply the court would rule on something just to take the spotlight off bu$hler for a while? Hell, they ELECTED him, didn't they?)

:freak:

[renaissanceguy]

22. Answer: yes

As in all cases, when there are real issues to be dealt with (that could put the repugs in danger), the repugs will divert attention to fringe issues.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21272015

[BarbaRosa]

23. Jon Stewart

hit it on the head when he said -these people (bushies) were all for states rights when they didn't control the federal government.-

[Pacifist Patriot]

43. Ding, ding, ding.

[Tempest]

33. Damn those activist judges

Not that the Repugs will see them as such.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Stevens, the Court's most liberal member, actually authored this opinion

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-06-medical-marijuana_x.htm

[emad]

40. US can bar medical cannabis use

People in the US who use cannabis for medical use risk prosecution following a ruling by the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that laws in at least nine states that currently allow medical marijuana do not protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens said Congress could change the law to allow the drug's use for medical reasons.

Advocates say cannabis is more effective than conventional forms of pain relief and without side-effects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4614635.stm

[snot]

112. If you appreciate the BBC as we've known it, PLS go to this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=376080&mesg_id=376080

[Chauga]

41. The answer is to change the federal law and legalize med. marijuana.

SCOTUS said that's all that's necessary to do if we want patients to have it.

[JRob]

42. BIG DRUGS WIN! Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana

Fed wins Supreme Court votes 6-3 against the will of State voters:

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050606/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana_15

[pissed_American]

45. marijuana is NOT a DRUG !

A drug must be produced - just like alcohol, cocaine, heroin, LSD, vicodin, morphine, etc, etc, etc - which are all derived from the parent substance. If you have a few seeds and throw them (or drop them) in the ground you will have some marijuana NATUALLY in no time. I`ve never heard of anyone smoking some weed and getting on the freeway going the wrong way and smashing into a family killing the occupants - unlike a drunk driver.

Hell, even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp...and separated the Males and Female plants -which will produce "seedless buds" for smoking.

By 1850 there were 8,327 hemp plantations of 2,000 acres or more.

If it`s good enough for the founding fathers, it`s good enough for America.

[JRob]

49. You'll get no argument from me on that...

After the issue of Federal interference in State business, you got to believe that big drug companies don't want doctors pushing pot...

They want them pushing their latest drugs.

[Zhade]

72. THANK you. It's not a drug, it's a FUCKING PLANT.

It is absolutely INSANE that a beneficial plant is illegal to use. It's actually, IMHO, a crime against humanity.

Death's Head mushrooms KILL YOU, but I don't see THOSE on the Feds' no-no list.

[Ilsa]

44. The good news is that the court is getting older and sicker.

The bad news is that they have access to all of the best medical care and pain relief. Screw them. I hope their doctors (or at least the receptionists) tell them they have to wait.

[fenster99]

47. A little help...Scoopage to be posted!

You guys...newbie here...can't start a thread.

Somebody please put this up on the latest breaking news threads for all to see.

Thanks. L@L (MRR blog)

A Bolton NSA request gets leaked!

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

[Shrek]

48. Many in this thread are agreeing with Thomas & Rehnquist

Does no one find that a little disturbing?

:shrug:

[Mitt Chovick]

66. Maybe most DUers aren't as statist as some think they are

Ironic that Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevenson are on the other side.

[jody]

50. DEA approved Marinol, can still be prescribed at a cost of $500/month

See DEA's propaganda "Medical" Marijuana - The Facts probably written by the pharmaceutical industry.

DEA says "Unlike smoked marijuana--which contains more than 400 different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke" but we still allow tobacco to be sold. :shrug:

[Fire]

86. Not to mention that marinol has a lot of problems

being a pill the reaction in people is different.

[Walt Starr]

51. Good, maybe it'll kick conress in the butt, then

Support for medical marijuana is growing, as well as support for decriminalizing. If conress remains so out of step, they will get replaced.

[Zhade]

73. Oh, Walt, how I admire your wishful thinking.

Because you know that's all it is. After all, something like 80%+ of Americans were against Congress intervening in the Terri Schiavo case, but that sure didn't stop them.

[Trigger Hippie]

52. Argghhhh

I hate this. Sick and dying people should be able to use whatever medicine that makes them feel better. Why single out marijuana? Sick people take medicine that has cocaine and all kinds of other so called "bad" drugs in them. This ruling is so f***ing stupid!!

[chicagojoe]

61. The Bushmonkeys see legal medical marijuana as

a backdoor way of legalizing it completely.

[Zhade]

74. No kidding - we give kids SPEED (Ritalin) , yet a plant is illegal.

Just another sign of how utterly fucked-up this country's priorities are.

Welcome to DU!

[Trigger Hippie]

75. You got that right!

Yet another example of the fuckedupness of this "great" country. Thanks for the welcome!

[indepat]

53. I get weepy-eyed just thinking of SCOTUS' compassion and humanity

[Jack_DeLeon]

56. What about State's Rights you stupid fucks...

What a bunch of fucking bullshit.

[Ezlivin]

58. Medical Marijuana Effort Loses at U.S. High Court

June 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the medical marijuana movement, ruling that federal narcotics laws ban the drug even when it never crosses state lines and is used only to relieve pain or nausea.

The justices, siding with the Bush administration, today said Congress's power over interstate commerce is broad enough to cover locally grown and used medical marijuana. The 6-3 ruling overturns a decision that favored two California women, including one who says cannabis relieves life-threatening symptoms.

<snip>

The Bush administration said the lower court ruling would undermine its efforts to enforce anti-drug laws.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBLMqstfQ7rc&refer=us

[Coastie for Truth]

59. That Terrible Day

That Liberal and Progressive States Rights Advocates Have Feared - Is Now Upon Us

<>
Judah Philip Benjamin
Attorney General, Confederate States of America
Secretary of State, Confederate States of America
United States Senator from Louisiana
Confederate States Senator from Louisiana

[MaineDem]

60. I don't get it - O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Thomas dissent???

NOW they decide FOR states' rights???

This blows my mind.

[Marnieworld]

65. May they all die horrible, painful deaths. n/t

[Pastiche423]

77. Or to put it another way

(a better way IMHO)

May they all live horrible, painful lives.

[Zorra]

70. The Bu*h Administration goes to bat for big Pharmaceutical Companies

once again.

I don't smoke herb. But if I was sick, and needed to use marijuana to relieve the symptoms of my illness, I would, regardless what of Bu*h and his Supreme Court says is illegal because of their desire to see innocent people suffer in order to protect the profits of huge corporations.

And woe to anyone that tried to come into my home to take my medicine away.

[usregimechange]

78. The conservative wing dissented? I don't understand.

[SRSU]

84. Um it's pretty simple

Repubs control a ton of states at the moment. If the SCOTUS ruled another way it would essentially mean state law can trump federal law. (which is bull shit constitutionally which is why the conservative justices wanted it that way)

Now - think for a minute what the solid red states could do if they could trump federal law. Here are some examples. Abortion would be totally illegal in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and a host of other states this year. GLBT rights (what few exist) would be totally gone. Civil rights laws would be gone. States would merge with religion. The list goes on.

MANY state legislatures are full of right wing nut jobs that make Santorum look like a moderate. I mean off the wall totally insane right wingers. The SCOTUS just prevented them from going on a rampage.

[madmark]

111. I do not think ruling that the commerce clause does not encompass personal

cultivation and consumption of mj for medical purposes wouild mean right wingers could go on a rampage.

[JohnLocke]

79. I agree with the decision.

When state and federal law conflict, the federal law takes precedence.

[madmark]

106. Its not about supremacy, its about extending federal jurisdiction through

an interpretation of the commerce clause so broad that it brings everything under federal control and effectively repeals the 9th and 10th amendments.

[SRSU]

83. This is a GOOD ruling

I wish people would think 2 mintues in to the future before deciding this was horrible.

Yes, the actual medical marijuana prohibition is bad.

HOWEVER - they SCOTUS HAD to rule this way. Fed law MUST trump state law. This is very clear constitutionally, and it was settled even further in the civil war.

If the SCOTUS had NOT ruled this way do you have ANY idea what that would mean? It would allow state law to be superior to fed law. So if Texas decides anyone who is not white is not allowed to be employed - even if federal law would ban that - the state law would trump fed law. The solid red states would go nuts with such laws.

[slay]

87. I kind of agree - BUT

that just means it's high time (doh) to legalize - or at the very least decriminalize - marijuana.

How marijuana - used as a political tool - became illegal:

"On January 1, 1932, the newly established Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a unit in the Treasury Department, took over from the Alcohol Unit of the department the enforcement of the federal antiopiate and anticocaine laws; and former Assistant Prohibition Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger took over as commissioner of narcotics. Commissioner Anslinger had no legal jurisdiction over marijuana, but his interest in it was intense.

The Bureau's first Annual Report under his aegis warned that marijuana, dismissed as a minor problem by the Treasury one year earlier, had now "come into wide and increasing abuse in many states, and the Bureau of Narcotics has therefore been endeavoring to impress on the various States the urgent need for vigorous enforcement of the local cannabis laws."

Many people believe that Mr. Anslinger collaborated with industry giants to outlaw marijuana. It is known that he was acquainted with both the Hearsts (of Hearst Newspapers) and the DuPonts, of DuPont plastic fame. (Hemp seed oil derivatives could replace DuPont's petroleum derived compounds.)

In the 1930s, Hearst, who owned newspapers all over the country, started publishing sensationalist-type "news" stories about marijuana use. These stories, often written by Hearst or Anslinger himself, talked about "insanity, criminality, and death" caused by smoking marijuana, sometimes after just one joint. This intense propaganda campaign led to anti-marijuana laws in many states."

more:
http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm

[madmark]

107. Its not about supremacy, its about interpreting the commerce clause

so broadly that federal jurisdiction covers everything effectively eliminating the 9th and 10th amendments. You do not need the commerce clause to apply to everything in existence to have federal constitutional, and legistlative, protections against the racial discrimination in your hypo.

[cal04]

88. California Attorney General: Don't Panic Over Medical Marijuana Ruling

Oregon stopped issuing medical marijuana cards after Monday's Supreme Court ruling, but people could apparently still get pot with a doctor's prescription there and in nine other states. And nobody in law enforcement appeared eager to make headlines arresting ailing patients.

"People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real-world impact." The high court ruled 6-3 that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws.

The ruling does not strike down medical marijuana laws in California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont or Washington state. State and local authorities in most of those states said they have no interest in arresting people who smoke pot for medical reasons. It remains to be seen whether the federal Drug Enforcement Administration is planning a crackdown. The Justice Department was not commenting. In Oregon, state officials said they would temporarily stop issuing medical marijuana cards to sick people.

"We want to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," said Grant Higginson, a public health officer who oversees Oregon's medical marijuana program.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB8Y88CN9E.html

[Sugarbleus]

90. My companion belongs to a MM co-op. The news is all over

our local channels. Leon Panetta is giving a speech on the issue and crowds will assemble at 5:pm tomorrow night (tues) in our downtown area for protest. All must wear black.

Most believe the Raich Decision is unconstitutional...even *gag* Michael Savage.

http://www.wamm.org

[bitchkitty]

91. I am an Oregon cardholder and

a member of the largest patient/caregiver organization in the state. Many of our members are sick or dying, and this news is hitting them very hard. We're reassuring them that this doesn't mean that they have to stop using the medicine that makes their lives bearable, but now we're reading that the State AG has suspended issuing new cards while he reviews the law.

I don't know what to tell them. I want to get on the phone, but when I try to compose my "speech" I start crying and all that comes to mind is please, please, please...some of our members are alive only because of marijuana - without that option they'd have taken the chill pill a long time ago. This is a cruel, cruel thing that the SC has done.

[Zhade]

96. BK, I feel for you and your fellows.

It's a very beneficial plant, and it's a crime that it's illegal - for ANYONE, but especially the ill and dying.

:hug: Just wanted you to know there are people out there who care.

[Imagevision]

92. Government can bar medical marijuana use - but why do that??

The federal government has the power to prevent sick patients from smoking home-grown marijuana that a doctor recommended to relieve chronic pain, a divided
U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a setback for the medical marijuana movement.

Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court majority that the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was a valid exercise of federal power by the U.S. Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case" involving two seriously ill California women.

Angel Raich has an inoperable brain tumor and other medical problems while Diane Monson suffers from severe back pain. Their doctors recommended marijuana for their pain.

"If I were to stop using cannabis unfortunately I would die," the 39-year-old Raich told reporters. "This is the only way I have to combat my suffering."

The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, John Walters, the White House drug czar, said in a statement, "Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue."

The federal government still has a choice -- it can waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick and dying patients or go after individuals who pose a real danger to society.

Is this another example of our government doing what's good for it's people?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050606/ts_nm/usa_court_marijuana_dc_2

[shimmergal]

98. Let's NOT make it "the end of medical marijuana

as a pollitical issue."

If even more states vote to legalize medical marijuana, the Feds will be looking at an increasingly impossible enforcement picture. Swamp them with possible arresstees, and make sure local press gives the maximum coverage to any poor patient they do arrest.

Unfortuantely other states that were close to legalizing it probably won't do so, now. But it strikes me as a more effective way to fight back than changing the law (for all the "moneyed interesst" reasons
given above), even though I'd like to believe some well-intentioned Congressperson could manage to insert an obscure amendment that would sail through and do just that.

[Blue_Tires]

97. maybe the court will loosen up

if they watch that 'reefer madness' musical

[tom_paine]

108. The Busheviks are Totalitarians and don't believe in States' Rights'

Kind of like the way the Nazis labelled themselves Socialists as a convenient sop that would help dupe more fools into supporting them.

Same with Busheviks and States' Rights.