So Clarence Thomas was one of the three dissenters on the SCOTUS

[candy331]

marijuana decision. I wonder why Thomas dissented, does he/a family member have/will have an illness needing this treatment. I wonder.

[rfranklin]

1. I think he's a Rastafarian...

but only on weekends.

[necso]

11. Oh, I don't know.

"Hard work good, hard work fine, but first take care of head."

[Sgt. Baker]

2. maybe

he sees it as a states rights issue instead of basing his decision on his personal views of marijuana.

[BeFree]

10. That's about right

He would like to see individual states be able to: ban abortion, curtail civil rights, and even, I'd go so far to say, bring back slavery.

The decision was not about whether MJ is good for you, it was about whether the federal government can pass laws which over ride state laws.

The decision was constitutionaly correct, and it is now quite obvious Thomas has very little regard or understanding of the constitution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now then: Certain drugs which were legal, have been proven to be so dangerous that just a small amount can kill an individual. Many of these doctor prescribed drugs have been removed from the market after legally killing hundreds, even thousands of people. Can anyone show me one case of a small amount of MJ killing anyone?

[JDPriestly]

3. It wasn't about marijuana

It was about states' rights and the use of the Commerce Clause.

[firefox]

5. True.

Richard Cowan is past director of NORML and writes at MarijuanaNews.com. His commentary on the ruling was dominated by what Judge Thomas wrote in dissent- http://tinyurl.com/b6t8e

[HawkerHurricane]

4. He probably saw...

that it was going to be passed, and got a safe 'dissent' he can point to...
"See, I'm not in lockstep, I'm my own man, when it doesn't matter..."

[JohnLocke]

6. Because he and the other two boobs are part of the "states' rights" crowd.

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

7. porn is better with a doobie n/t

[slay]

8. Ever read Hunter S. Thompson's account of his run in with Thomas?

Freakin awesome.

Read it here:
http://www.gonzo.org/elko.txt

[AlCzervik]

9. states rights issue. You have the right to bear arms but not to smoke

medically prescribed cannibus-amazing. We dont trust with weed but a Smith and Weeon, no problem. If Merck or Pfizer was supplying pot it would legal everwhere.

[WillowTree]

12. Well, sort of a states rights issue, sort of not.

What was at issue really had nothing to do with the use, either medical or recreational, of marijuana per se, but what governmental entity has the authority to regulate its production and/or sale and/or use under the Constitution and the CSA as they exist on the books. The majority opinion (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy with a separate assenting opinion from Scalia) was based on a 1942 SCOTUS opinion regarding application of the Commerce Clause and there was a certain elegant logic to that decision. When viewed in light of the earlier decision, Tuesday's ruling was correct.

The dissenting opinions by O'Connor and Thomas (Rehnquist dissented, too, but didn't write an opinion) were based on their views that the 1942 opinion overstretched the intent of the framers when they included the Commerce Clause. There was no real fault with the dialectic in either dissenting opinion as written, but the reasoning behind the majority opinion and the underlying 1942 decision was, to me anyway, kind of hard to escape.

And, for the record, I have ample reason to be strongly in favor of Compassionate Use laws and have fought for them more than once.

It's really very interesting and illuminating to actually read such decisions and the background information behind them. Interesting, too, that, considering the fact that this was not the decision most Liberals would have hoped for, all of the most liberal and moderate justices were in the majority on this one. If, however, one's intent is merely to criticize, ridicule and find fault, it's faster and easier to just make up your own "facts of the case" as you go along.