• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme court rules on Medical Marijuana

K

konichiwa

Lifer
Washington Post

Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana 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.

Interesting that while the conservative court has been upholding states' rights of late, when pushed by the right of America they deny states' rights when it comes to a controversial 'leftist" topic like pot.

How much longer will we fight the inevitable? Pot will be decriminalized in the United States and the puritans who oppose its decriminalization will one day be decried as the modern day temperance movement in the US...
 
This is bad because it gives the Fed govt the ability to 'chose' who it wants to prosecute. i.e

Person A and B use pot for medical purposes. We like person B less. Lets charge person B with drug possession/consumption.
 
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
This is bad because it gives the Fed govt the ability to 'chose' who it wants to prosecute. i.e

Person A and B use pot for medical purposes. We like person B less. Lets charge person B with drug possession/consumption.
Click to expand...

Actually it sounds more like they invalidated all of the state laws on this issue and bumped it upto the federal level.

 
Interesting that while the conservative court has been upholding states' rights of late, when pushed by the right of America they deny states' rights when it comes to a controversial 'leftist" topic like pot.
Click to expand...
Don't blame the conservative court for this - Rehnquist and Thomas were part of the dissent.
 
Well, the states chose to challenge the federal laws on the dug, so if they lose it is their fault for choosing the wrong path. When a state official or a city official tells their citizens that it is OK to break Federal Law, they open themselves up for law suits. If you have a federal conviction for drugs, it will make it extremely hard to find a good job.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
This is bad because it gives the Fed govt the ability to 'chose' who it wants to prosecute. i.e

Person A and B use pot for medical purposes. We like person B less. Lets charge person B with drug possession/consumption.
Click to expand...

Actually it sounds more like they invalidated all of the state laws on this issue and bumped it upto the federal level.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and everytime I mention that I see more and more of this happening the Republicans in here go crazy saying that is not happening.

Let's see them try and explain this away now 😕

 
Originally posted by: aswedc
Interesting that while the conservative court has been upholding states' rights of late, when pushed by the right of America they deny states' rights when it comes to a controversial 'leftist" topic like pot.
Click to expand...
Don't blame the conservative court for this - Rehnquist and Thomas were part of the dissent.
Click to expand...


I didn't blame the conservative justices; I blamed the conservative court and while 2 of the conservative justices may have been on the dissent I was speaking toward the general right lean of today's court.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
This is bad because it gives the Fed govt the ability to 'chose' who it wants to prosecute. i.e

Person A and B use pot for medical purposes. We like person B less. Lets charge person B with drug possession/consumption.
Click to expand...

Actually it sounds more like they invalidated all of the state laws on this issue and bumped it upto the federal level.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and everytime I mention that I see more and more of this happening the Republicans in here go crazy saying that is not happening.

Let's see them try and explain this away now 😕
Click to expand...

What is there to explain?



 
What about Marinol?

That is a THC pill prescribed by doctors to cancer patients that do not want to smoke to get the relief of THC?
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What about Marinol?

That is a THC pill prescribed by doctors to cancer patients that do not want to smoke to get the relief of THC?
Click to expand...

Ask the court, never even heard of the pill so it is a little hard for me to discuss the topic and how the courts view it.

 
As I understand it, Federal law enforcement can intercede in state matters only when "interstate commerce" is concerned. I've read through the AP wire as well as a few other online reports on the ruling and I cannot find the reasoning behind the court's ruling that privately grown, harvested and smoked marijuana falls under the Federal government's umbrella of "interstate commerce."

Can anyone enlighten me?
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What about Marinol?

That is a THC pill prescribed by doctors to cancer patients that do not want to smoke to get the relief of THC?
Click to expand...

Ask the court, never even heard of the pill so it is a little hard for me to discuss the topic and how the courts view it.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend

marinol.com
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What about Marinol?

That is a THC pill prescribed by doctors to cancer patients that do not want to smoke to get the relief of THC?
Click to expand...

Ask the court, never even heard of the pill so it is a little hard for me to discuss the topic and how the courts view it.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend

marinol.com
Click to expand...

Maybe I didnt make it clear enough for you.

Not interested in debating about a drug I know little about. On top of that there is little to debate since I am not the court system.

Oh did I mention I dont have ample amounts of time to research things on a whim to engage in thought provoking conversation with a person who will somehow bring the argument down to three words?

Radical Religious Right.

In other words I have better things to do.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What about Marinol?

That is a THC pill prescribed by doctors to cancer patients that do not want to smoke to get the relief of THC?
Click to expand...

Ask the court, never even heard of the pill so it is a little hard for me to discuss the topic and how the courts view it.
Click to expand...

Somebody is going to have to grow the pot in order to make the THC pill. I volunteer!! 😀
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What about Marinol?

That is a THC pill prescribed by doctors to cancer patients that do not want to smoke to get the relief of THC?
Click to expand...

Ask the court, never even heard of the pill so it is a little hard for me to discuss the topic and how the courts view it.
Click to expand...

Somebody is going to have to grow the pot in order to make the THC pill. I volunteer!! 😀
Click to expand...

I don't know how it's made but you can't extract THC from marjiuana. Marinol is extremely safer than smoking some joint. There is no need for medical marjiuana anymore.
 
It's a synthetic version of Delta-9-THC. It's analogous to the way that OxyContin and some other pain killers are synthetic opiates. And it is possible to extract THC from marijuana, and while it works it's pretty crude and wouldn't work for large-scale pharmaceuticals.
 
They seemed to keep putting it out their that maybe they should work for reclassification....

"We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. 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. Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."


I wonder what the procedures are for reclassification?
Probably somehow through the executive branch???


Secondly, I don't see congress doing a damn thing about this as long as the morality mongers are in control.....

This brings about a interesting question for me in regards to what republicans think about drug laws in general....?


Hopefully, this will rally the troops in regards to reforming the classification in the very least....It is a joke for Marijuana to be classified as schedule I........
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Genx87
What is there to explain?
Click to expand...

Conservative inconsistency on states rights.
Click to expand...

Eh? Sounds like the conservatives were in the dissenting side of this case.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you define conservatives. The general consensus is that there are five conservatives and four liberals. Some are more moderate than others.

So the fact it was 6-3 suggests at least one conservative went for this.

(Edit: said 9 instead of 6)
 
4 of 4 liberal justices voted for it.

3 of 5 conservative justices voted against it.

1 conservative voted with the liberals, and 1 voted for the decision, but for different reasons than the other 5.

Blaming this on conservatives is stupid. 70 years of liberal court decisions expanding hte power of the federal government to anything remotely connected to interstate commerce made it nearly impossible for this to come out any other way.
 
Originally posted by: Helenihi
4 of 4 liberal justices voted for it.

3 of 5 conservative justices voted against it.

1 conservative voted with the liberals, and 1 voted for the decision, but for different reasons than the other 5.

Blaming this on conservatives is stupid. 70 years of liberal court decisions expanding hte power of the federal government to anything remotely connected to interstate commerce made it nearly impossible for this to come out any other way.
Click to expand...

Shhh dont bring thought into this.

It has to be more proof of the RRRs taking over.
 
Originally posted by: Helenihi
4 of 4 liberal justices voted for it.

3 of 5 conservative justices voted against it.

1 conservative voted with the liberals, and 1 voted for the decision, but for different reasons than the other 5.
Click to expand...

I wonder what that 1 conservatives position on states rights are.

Blaming this on conservatives is stupid.
Click to expand...
I didn't do that in case you suggested I did. If you didn't, never mind.
 
A clear and blatant violation of the constitutional protection of States Rights.


Marinol is completely ineffective for cancer treatment. A joke. I know this for fact from the experience of watching a good friend die from cancer.
 
There was no sale. The pot never crossed state lines. A friend who happens to be a California Appellate Court judge agrees that the Supreme Court should never have taken the case.

Poetic justice would be if every one of them who voted against it runs head on into the need for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top