The medical marijuana case has turned this place into BizzaroWorld

[theboss]

First of all, not to be arrogant, someone should have some legal background before analyzing a Supreme Court decision. You don't need to be a lawyer, but you should understand the appellate process.

Second, the court did not rule on the validity of medical marijuana. The justices who voted against the states probably would vote in favor of MM if they were legislators. They voted on the legal reasoning of the lower courts' decisions.

Third, to hear a bunch of Democrats suddenly champion states rights makes me want to hang myself. We are not in favor of states rights. We like the broad interpretation of the commerce clause. Without it, we do not have equal rights for blacks or women in the workplace. We do not have federal environmental regulations. We do not have work place safety regulation. We do not have anything from the New Deal through the war on poverty through today. It's all because of the intepretation of the commerce clause that was upheld in this case.

Finally, if you want medical marijuana, get Congress to act. I want it too. But I see the logic that there cannot be a federal war on drugs if the states are legalizing pot. It's a matter of who gets to regulate it. If the states get to regulate it, then hotels in Atlanta can once again refuse to give black people rooms.

[Wright Patman]

1. Hell, why stop at federal

Let's have a one-world government decide everything for us. By your reasoning, that would be the ultimate in Democratic thinking.

[theboss]

2. So, you are in favor of repealing the New Deal?

If the states win here, they win on those cases?

[slackmaster]

14. I think you are creating a false dilemma

The case for federal regulation of some things makes sense in terms of national interests. I have no problem with federal regulation of nuclear materials, prescription drugs; or its less invasive regulation of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.

You can build your own handgun, brew your own beer, and grow your own tobacco but you can't build a machinegun, distill whisky, or roll and sell homegrown cigars. You can't make and use your own antibiotics or build your own breeder reactor. Each issue is treated by the federal government in proportion to the national interest in regulating it. Likewise, the Social Security system is imposed on everyone because in order for it to work everyone must contribute. People derive benefit generally in proportion to their contributions, and some is reserved for people who become disabled. The system serves society as a whole pretty well.

To me it's completely ridiculous to allow the federal government to say I can't grow a particular species of plant, or dry it and smoke it in my own house.

[0rganism]

17. I think you are underestimating the reach of propaganda

You said it yourself:
> Each issue is treated by the federal government in proportion to the
> national interest in regulating it.

And how strong do you suppose the "national interest" in regulating marijuana to be? Who defines what the "national interest" is?

Let me put it this way: put in a call to your representative in congress, and ask him/her to propose an amendment to the CSA that allows for states to pass sufficiently well-structured allowance for medical marijuana growth and use. See how far it goes.

> To me it's completely ridiculous to allow the federal government to
> say I can't grow a particular species of plant

Since 1970, the government has been fighting against production and consumption of "schedule 1" substances, whether plants or synthetics. Your opinion of the appropriateness of the schedule (I don't see you complaining about the CSA as a whole) appears to conflict with that of the majority of 35 years of Congresses and the people who elected those Congresses.

We'd probably agree that it is that way for the wrong reasons, but it doesn't get us one step closer to addressing the root cause.

Meanwhile, advocates of medical marijuana on this forum are attacking the very mechanism which makes envirnomental and humanitarian regulation possible from a federal level.

[slackmaster]

24. Looks like you haven't read my other posts on this subject

No problem, I will answer your question directly.

And how strong do you suppose the "national interest" in regulating marijuana to be?

IMO there is absolutely NO national interest in regulating marijuana or any other plant.

Who defines what the "national interest" is?

That is and should continue to be a responsibility of Congress. They don't always get it right.

Let me put it this way: put in a call to your representative in congress, and ask him/her to propose an amendment to the CSA that allows for states to pass sufficiently well-structured allowance for medical marijuana growth and use. See how far it goes.

That would not be consistent with my views on the issue. Every communication I have sent to my Senators and Representatives (regarding marijuana issues) has been advocating an end to the prohibition on marijuana.

Meanwhile, advocates of medical marijuana on this forum are attacking the very mechanism which makes envirnomental and humanitarian regulation possible from a federal level.

I'm neither fish nor fowl on "medical" MJ because I think it should be legal. A straighforward repeal of the federal ban would solve the whole dilemma of the rights of people to obtain medicine of their choice vs. federal control of something that never should have come under control in the first place.

[tk2kewl]

3. would definitely put a damper on the war thing

who would we bomb, if we had one world govenment elected by everyone?

[0rganism]

15. Depends on if we had a posse comitatus restriction, no?

There doesn't seem to be a shortage of governments who act against their people.

[Wright Patman]

25. Diebold on a global scale?

Count me out.

As they already do in terms of our national election, I'm sure.

[slackmaster]

4. Sorry, but I think the ICC broadening has gone too far

We are not in favor of states rights. We like the broad interpretation of the commerce clause.

Speak for yourself. I prefer a reasonable middle ground where the federal government intervenes when there is a real compelling reason to do so, and otherwise stays out of the states' business.

Without it, we do not have equal rights for blacks or women in the workplace. We do not have federal environmental regulations. We do not have work place safety regulation. We do not have anything from the New Deal through the war on poverty through today. It's all because of the intepretation of the commerce clause that was upheld in this case.

Sure, but nobody is suggesting throwing all that out. I don't want the state of Alabama to be able to produce its own nuclear arsenal, OTOH I don't think it's right for the federal government to be able to regulate what I grow in my garden or what I do with it in the privacy of my own home. Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion rings true for me.

Finally, if you want medical marijuana, get Congress to act.

That is the bottom line. On this we should all agree IMO. My personal preference would be for legalization of marijuana for adult use. It was banned under false pretenses.

[firefox]

5. The Constitution sought to limit federal power

Yesterday's ruling made it clear, that there was all but no limit to federal power. You do not have to be a legal scholar to understand that. There is the dissenting opinion that outlines the argument against the decision for one thing and all kinds of commentary.

But I will agree, that the real issue was not cannabis/marijuana. And I do not yield to the language of states rights as the major issue. The issue was the limits of federal power, which are now all but unlimited.

[theboss]

6. They've been unlimited since the 30s

Which liberal Democrats have always been okay with.

When did Strom Thurmond and George Wallace come back from the dead? Those are the last two Democrats to talk about States Rights.

This is madness.

Or hypocrisy.

[firefox]

9. So limits held until the 30's...

but now that the Constitution is trampled into the ground for 70 years, forget about it.

It is all part of the march to federal hegemony. Look at the act that said people could not sue a federal bank in state court after hundreds of years of precedent. Things were moving toward unlimited power for a long time. Yesterday's decision put the coffin in the ground.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

10. _I_ am talking about individual rights, not states' rights

Big difference.

[firefox]

11. I am talking about federal power

Over states and rights.

I regard the use of cannabis as an unalienable right. It inflicts no harm on anyone and is therefore no crime. As I often say "What do you call the permafrost once it melts and what do you call an unalienable right once it has been taken away?"

What we have is the progression of totalitarian capitalism. The system is run for the wealthy. They own the machine and we are but disposable batteries. I predicted the Raich ruling correctly as soon as it was accepted even though I disagreed with it as a clear stretch of what was intended by the Constitution.

And the drug war itself is an over-reach of Constitutional power. Why did alcohol prohibition require an amendment when it is a deadly killer and cannabis is federally prohibited while being the greatest medicinal plant on the planet. It all has to do with the march toward totalitarian capitalism and turning people into batteries.

So, the Constitution is dead. What is new?

[indepat]

8. You need not be a legal scholar to reason that the Supremes were

wrong in upholding a law promoting cruel and unusual punishment for people alleviating, in some cases, mortal pain. The total lack of humanity it itself was sufficient grounds for the Supremes to nullify the law insofar as use of marijuana is for alleviation of pain. I know there would be some abuse, but the answer should not be to make many people suffer needlessly because maybe a few would abuse this right. If you think this is a bad decision, just wait until all W's appointments are making decisions.

[theboss]

13. That is not within the court's power

The court can't rule that Marijuana can be legal anymore than it can lower the drinking age.

That power lies in the legislative branch.

[indepat]

23. What the hell do I know anyway not being a legal scholar

[0rganism]

19. except the case was brought against the DEA for destruction of property

The issue of marijuana as medicine was held to be tangential to the primary matter, that of the DEA being within its authority to destroy marijuana plants as part of the CSA. If the DEA had then imprisoned Raich or Monson, that would probably be legally addressable as a 5th-amendment violation.

[On the Road]

7. What Disturbs Me Most

is the flip-flopping of Scalia on the interstate commerce issue. It is true that precedents have widened the scope of "interstate commerce" a lot. But Scalia claims to be an originalist, and has ruled that way on cases where originalism results in his favored position (banning gun-free school zones, for example).

Yes, if you read the Interstate Commerce part of the Constitution, it seems like an incredible stretch to arrive at the current decision. That was O'Connor's point. But if you look at all the precedents and the things the federal government regulates under that language, the decision is pretty much typical.

[0rganism]

22. Scalia wrote a separate concurrence that explains his deviation

Don't misconstrue this as apologetic, but he does point to a different line of reasoning by which he opinies can maintain at least the appearence of consistency.
http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZO.pdf

Ultimately, I think Scalia is enough of an opportunist that he'll find a way to justify any position he's inclined to favor. This time, he has the arrogance to declare his position more "nuanced" than that of the other justices. In any given case, I expect him to take the position of a religious reactionary and justify it by whatever legalese he can come up with. Scalia's "originalism" means he originates his opinions about the Constitution and doesn't let pesky things like ethics or current caselaw get in the way of his activities.

[sweetheart]

16. There is no rationality except repression

States rights is no solution, i agree... rather the total destruction
of the federal government is. Then there will be no financial power
to follow up on this dangerous abuse of power.

As much as i hear you with all that other stuff, its amazing how the
individual countries of the EU have gone far beyond the new deal by
not having an oppressive federal... and this model is the guiding light.
the corporate federal is corrupt and on a 1 way street towards total
usurpation of power and elimination of human liberty.

There is no solution but to kill it.

[Zhade]

18. An email from the Marijuana Policy Project I received today...

Marijuana Policy Project Alert June 6, 2005

Supreme Court rules on medical marijuana — tell Congress to act!

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

In an historic decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 - 3 that the federal government can continue arresting patients who are using medical marijuana legally under state law. However, the decision did not overturn the medical marijuana laws in 10 states, which still protect patients from arrest by state and local police.


The Marijuana Policy Project's grants program provided the majority of the funding for this litigation, which is only the second medical marijuana case ever to reach the Supreme Court.


TAKE ACTION


Now that the Court has ruled, we need you to spring into action. Please click here to send a free fax or e-mail to your U.S. representative to ask him or her to protect medical marijuana patients, since the ball is now in Congress' court. In fact, a medical marijuana amendment is scheduled to come to the House floor for a vote next week. Our goal is to send 10,000 letters to Congress by the time of the vote, but we won't be able to achieve that goal without your help.


Then, please visit www.RaichAction.org to participate in a demonstration outside of your U.S. representative's local district office at noon on Wednesday, June 8.


BACKGROUND


In its ruling in Ashcroft v. Raich ,the Supreme Court said that Congress — not the Court — must be the institution to change federal law to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that 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."


By stressing the need for plaintiffs to use the democratic process, the Supreme Court has clearly put the ball in Congress' court. This makes next week's vote in the U.S. House of Representatives all the more significant.

STATE LAWS UNAFFECTED


The ruling does not affect states' ability to pass new medical marijuana laws; states are free to continue enacting laws that protect medical marijuana patients and their providers from arrest and prosecution by state and local law enforcement officials.


What the Supreme Court has done is continue the status quo: Patients in the 10 states with medical marijuana laws are protected under state law but will continue to risk prosecution under federal law. In other words, the Court's decision means that nothing has changed. Click here for more background on the case.

WE NEED YOUR HELP TO PROTECT PATIENTS!



Since it's now clear that patients cannot count on the federal courts for protection, we must push harder than ever for Congress to change federal law.


We need you to lobby Congress to end the federal government's attacks on medical marijuana patients and caregivers. Please visit www.RaichAction.org to learn how you can help pressure Congress to protect medical marijuana patients.



Then — if you agree that sick and suffering patients should not have to live in fear of armed federal agents breaking down the patients' doors to take away their medicine — please ensure that MPP has the necessary funds to push hard this week and next for Congress to pass an amendment that would prevent the DEA from arresting medical marijuana patients or providers who are acting legally under state law.


Thank you,


Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

[not systems]

20. The idea that all expansion of Federal power is double plus liberal is...

bogus.

There is nothing about federal power that is inherent
more or less favorable to progressive out comes.

The fact that some progress has been made because of expansion
of federal power doesn't mean all expansion of Federal power
is progressive.

In todays increasingly right wing climate we need the
courts to stand up to the tyranny of the majority on
many many issues and congress who's powers this expands
are the instrument of that tyranny.

Freedom and liberty is a liberal value.

1000000 people rot in jail because of the way you
believe the baby should be split.

[Orangepeel]

21. I don't care about state's rights. I care about privacy rights.

I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, but I know that somebody growing and smoking pot in their own home should be a matter of individual privacy. My own person unlearned opinion is that courts, the states and the federal government should mind their own beeswax.

[Wright Patman]

27. Beeswax is a federal issue

because bees can travel across state lines. :crazy:

[Orangepeel]

28. LOL!

:P

[On the Road]

29. That Was My Impression Reading Stevens's Decision

The plaintiffs used a relatively narrow argument involving the limits of the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce. To claim that the federal government had no jurisdiction is a difficult argument to make. Given the precedents, Stevens's arguments seem compelling.

A privacy argument puts the case on an altogether different basis. It then becomes a question of balancing individual rights against the government's powers. The individual rights are more compelling because at least one of the plaintiffs would be likely to die without marijuana.

The decision might have been the same, but it frames the question in a more favorable way.

[hansberrym]

26. Odd indeed.

Your claim is one of the most bizzar I've seen yet.

If the states get to regulate it, then hotels in Atlanta can once again refuse to give black people rooms.

What leads you to such a bizzar conclusion?

Do you really believe that the commerce claus is either without limit or without any effect at all? Is there no freedom of speech if one can not say anything one wants, whenever one wants? Is the government powerless to prohibit anything if it is powerless to prohibit some thing?

Renting of hotel rooms is clearly commerce, and the link to interstate commerce is plain. Hotels serve travelers, many of whom could rationally be assumed to be interstate travelers -so the link is obvious. Do you think that renting hotel rooms is somehow analogous to growing pot at home for one's own consumption?

Furthermore had the Supreme Court not pissed on the 14th amendment for the first 80 of that amendment's existence, there would have been no need to cite the commerce clause on regulating public accomodations. You give the court and the commerce claus way to much credit in that regard.

The same court that gave us the home-grown-wheat case also refused to acknowledge incorporation of the Bill of Rights by 14th amendment(See Adamson, Hugo Black's dissent especially). Not what I would call progressive.