| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2005/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37977 Activity:kinda low |
6/6 "In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block
the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana
So what are you faggot-loving drug-using tree-hugging protesting
LIBERALS gonna have to say about this? Ha ha ha ha
\_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
want you on our side. This tramples on state's rights.
-emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
\_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I don't want to think about how you would get
sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
\_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
\_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
than any other city in America.
2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
\_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
could avoid them. -emarkp
\_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
be disruptive to interstate commerce through
the area with respect to gas stations, public
accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
falls under the "provide for defense" and
provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
perhaps we might instead expand the National
Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
\_ Since when did the motd become /.? You must have missed the
"Medical Marijuana, RIP" post.
\_ Yeah I did, thanks -op, conservative
\_ If you're a real conservative, we don't want you on our side.
This tramples on state's rights. -emarkp
\_ If you're really a conservative (as opposed to one playing
this game of "this is what conservatives think"), we don't
want you on our side. This tramples on state's rights.
-emarkp
\_ I bet you'd have a different tone if the case is not about
marijuana, but about sodomy and gays and lesbians, since
the justices would be spreading the word of God for you.
\_ You'd be an idiot then. -emarkp
\_ In emarkp's defense, he's not commenting on the topic
at hand (he may be either for or against both medical
marijuana and gay rights) but rather on states' right
to deal with these issues. -John
\_ I don't want to think about how you would get
sodomy filed under "interstate commerce."
\_ I do! 1. the reputation of a sodomy-loving state
would disrupt trade routes when people avoid it
\_ This must be why Las Vegas is depopulating faster
than any other city in America.
2. when the LORD blasts the cities like the Sodom of
old, this might damage interstate highways etc.
\_ Then again, I'd think he has pretty good aim and
could avoid them. -emarkp
\_ Maybe he could, but I doubt he would. In any
case, the smoking wasteland would definitely
be disruptive to interstate commerce through
the area with respect to gas stations, public
accomodations, and so forth. Anti-sodomy also
falls under the "provide for defense" and
provide for general welfare" clauses. But,
perhaps we might instead expand the National
Missile Defense program to include Supernatural
Punishment Defense (to zap the raining frogs,
locust swarms, and burning sulfur).
[ threads merged ]
\_ O'Connor complaining that it's not repsecting state rights? I'm so
confused. Is this the Bizarro SCOTUS?
\_ States rights are only good if we like what the right is, like
citizens owning anti-tank weaponry and the government not knowing
who those owners are.
\_ Interesting that Justice Thomas dissented.
\_ Along with O'Conner and Rehnquist (he's still alive I
guess)
\_ Is this in line with Rehnquist's record? Does
anyone think he's changed his priorities because
of his health?
\_ They're voting as "state's-rights" ideologs.
O'Connor also wants to be perceived as the
compassionate/sensible conservative.
Scalia is not a buffoon so will judge according
to law, along with the other 5 in the majority
opinion, even though it hurts people.
\_ There's that all-inclusive "interstate commerce" line again. Just
like "provide for the general Welfare", it's broken.
\_ The reasoning in the opinion seems really weak.
\_ I read the opinion last night and I think that
Scalia's concurrence probably is more illuminating
than the majority opinion.
The way that I understand it is that the decision
is based on the 'necessary and proper' clause that
allows congress to regulate intrastate activities
to the extent that they affect interstate commerce.
As Scalia states the test is whether the means used
by congress are "'reasoanbly adapted' to the ...
legitimate end[s] under the commerce power."
Since Pot is a Schedule I drug (you may dispute
classification, but that was not at issue) and
Congress's desire to eliminate Schedule I drugs
from interstate commerce is legitimate (again
you may dispute this, but it was not at issue),
the question is whether it is possible to distin-
guish local pot from "imported" pot. Since it is
not, Congress's desire to restrict pot growing
preempts state law.
Notes:
(1) I have not taken Con Law yet, so my understa-
nding of the commerce power and the necessary
and proper clause is a bit weak.
(2) The real problem is that pot is misclassifed
as a Schedule I drug. If pot is reclassified,
then the outcome should be different and these
people can go about their business.
(3) My agreement of w/ the outcome is colored by
my general dislike for things like pot,
cigarettes, coffee, alcohol, &c.
\_ If nothing else I enjoyed hearing "The evil left-wing liberals
are trying to steal our pot" on right-wing talk radio this
morning. |
| 5/17 |
|
| www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana -> www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/ WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The US Supreme Court Monday ruled doctors can be bl ocked 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 b ackyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broade r social and financial implications. "Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an econom ic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate co mmerce is firmly established," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the m ajority. The case took an unusu ally long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November. The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allo w the use of medical marijuana, said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey To obin. "If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully pres ented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said. At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on us e of "patient pot." The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The govern ment argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even l imited patient exceptions. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began raids in 2001 against patients us ing the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that l egalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain. A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commer cial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise." But lawyers for the US Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court t hat homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the gar den patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug g angs. Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was n either bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "c annabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patien ts. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical mar ijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity." The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution. Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Main e, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a s imilar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription po t California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's appro val to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs." Users include television host Montel Williams, who uses it to ease pain f rom multiple sclerosis. Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs de emed by the government to be narcotics. "It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all dru gs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation. In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal g overnment invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession." |