What a CROCK!

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - 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.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

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.

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."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

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, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

shot

Banned
May 6, 2005
110
0
0
like thats going to stop them. The all mighty high court has no idea what a bunch of dickheads they are.
 

gigapet

Lifer
Aug 9, 2001
10,005
0
76
this will not impact anything.

At the state level they can still obtain the herbal remedies. I doubt the fbi is going to be busting a bunch of sick ppl.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Not quite... the court ruled that they have the right to make such rulings in the future if they choose.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: gigapet
this will not impact anything.

At the state level they can still obtain the herbal remedies. I doubt the fbi is going to be busting a bunch of sick ppl.

But, that's the reason FOR this case... they got busted by federal authorities, not state authorities.
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
6-3 decision

if it isn't medicine, it isn't medicine

I'd rather see doctors deciding this rather than government officials
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I just wonder now, are they going to increase the enforcement from the federal level? Or will it be one of those "don't ask/don't tell" type of laws that lack enforcement?
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I just wonder now, are they going to increase the enforcement from the federal level? Or will it be one of those "don't ask/don't tell" type of laws that lack enforcement?

I don't think much action will come of it, aside from maybe a couple headliners for public relations.

I believe in Seattle, pot is officially the #1 lowest police priority.
 

gigapet

Lifer
Aug 9, 2001
10,005
0
76
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: gigapet
this will not impact anything.

At the state level they can still obtain the herbal remedies. I doubt the fbi is going to be busting a bunch of sick ppl.

But, that's the reason FOR this case... they got busted by federal authorities, not state authorities.

i understand that. its still a federal crime, my point is the feds dont really concentrate resources on pot busts let alone pot busts involving grannie and her glaucoma medicine. This one arrest was clearly politically driven and is not going to be a new war on pot. In many places without medicine marijuana laws the authorities look the otherway anyways. There are just too many more important crimes to be focusing on.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: gigapet
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: gigapet
this will not impact anything.

At the state level they can still obtain the herbal remedies. I doubt the fbi is going to be busting a bunch of sick ppl.

But, that's the reason FOR this case... they got busted by federal authorities, not state authorities.

i understand that. its still a federal crime, my point is the feds dont really concentrate resources on pot busts let alone pot busts involving grannie and her glaucoma medicine. This one arrest was clearly politically driven and is not going to be a new war on pot. In many places without medicine marijuana laws the authorities look the otherway anyways. There are just too many more important crimes to be focusing on.

To state the obvious, to me this is clearly an indication that the federal government is out of step with the will of the people on this issue. If grannie with the glaucoma gets arrested for smoking pot (or otherwise ingesting THC) to relieve the pain, who is the "victim" of this "crime"?
 

ScoobMaster

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2001
2,528
10
81
More of the intrusive Imperial Federal government stomping all over the rights of the States........... it was *NOT* intended to be this way!
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Good, our society already has enough drugs, the last thing we need is more freaking people getting wasted. Stupid pot heads.

Damn, this :beer: I have is tasting good, but I'm nearly out. Time to make a drive to the store...
 

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: gigapet
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: gigapet
this will not impact anything.

At the state level they can still obtain the herbal remedies. I doubt the fbi is going to be busting a bunch of sick ppl.

But, that's the reason FOR this case... they got busted by federal authorities, not state authorities.

i understand that. its still a federal crime, my point is the feds dont really concentrate resources on pot busts let alone pot busts involving grannie and her glaucoma medicine. This one arrest was clearly politically driven and is not going to be a new war on pot. In many places without medicine marijuana laws the authorities look the otherway anyways. There are just too many more important crimes to be focusing on.

To state the obvious, to me this is clearly an indication that the federal government is out of step with the will of the people on this issue. If grannie with the glaucoma gets arrested for smoking pot (or otherwise ingesting THC) to relieve the pain, who is the "victim" of this "crime"?

Where glaucoma is concerned it's not a pain issue. THC relieves the pressure in the eyes that is the result of glaucoma.
 

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Good, our society already has enough drugs, the last thing we need is more freaking people getting wasted. Stupid pot heads.

Damn, this :beer: I have is tasting good, but I'm nearly out. Time to make a drive to the store...

Got any Mexican cocaine on you today? ;)
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Ugh, I want to say something but it'd generate a lot of heat and is really more the type of thing for P&N... but you can guess what it is :|
 

crimson117

Platinum Member
Aug 25, 2001
2,094
0
76
All this ruling says is that as current law stands, feds can investigate a federal crime even though it may not be a crime acording to a particular state law. It made no findings on whether marijuana was suitable for medicinal use.

- The federal gov't could still make a law giving the states the right-of-way in these situations (fat chance)

- Or they could make a law that puts marijuana in the same class as morphine - still illegal to use for recreational purposes, but perfectly legal if prescribed by a doctor (and other details).

I think the second option is fine and I have no idea why they haven't done it yet. Anyone?

 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: FoBoT
6-3 decision

if it isn't medicine, it isn't medicine

I'd rather see doctors deciding this rather than government officials



Same with me, but people misunderstand if they're blaming the court on this one. The court interprets the laws - the laws are set in place by the legislative branch.

If you want legal pot for medecine, you have to elect senators and congressmen who support that idea. How many of you voted last time around?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: crimson117
I think the second option is fine and I have no idea why they haven't done it yet. Anyone?

Probably because there are more red states than blue states.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: crimson117
All this ruling says is that as current law stands, feds can investigate a federal crime even though it may not be a crime acording to a particular state law. It made no findings on whether marijuana was suitable for medicinal use.

- The federal gov't could still make a law giving the states the right-of-way in these situations (fat chance)

- Or they could make a law that puts marijuana in the same class as morphine - still illegal to use for recreational purposes, but perfectly legal if prescribed by a doctor (and other details).

I think the second option is fine and I have no idea why they haven't done it yet. Anyone?

Noone is giving them a bribe/kickback..

Yet another government intrusion in our lives, but then again what else is new?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
61,760
17,456
136
Well, someone's gotta show all those cancer and HIV patients who's the boss.
 

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: chrisms
Originally posted by: FoBoT
6-3 decision

if it isn't medicine, it isn't medicine

I'd rather see doctors deciding this rather than government officials



Same with me, but people misunderstand if they're blaming the court on this one. The court interprets the laws - the laws are set in place by the legislative branch.

If you want legal pot for medecine, you have to elect senators and congressmen who support that idea. How many of you voted last time around?


It didn't sound like a few of them wanted to make this ruling, but like you said it is not in their authority to decide. Unfortunately it is difficult to get pro-marijuana people elected because the government itself is the source of most of the anti-marijuana propaganda, which doesn't seem right to me.