Comments on: Supreme Court Allows Prosecution of Medical Marijuana

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:42:36 +0000

Around the Blogosphere

Anti-Christian zealots and the Air Force Academy Michelle Malkin Downing Street Memo Michelle Malkin, WizBang, Blogs for Bush Pie Thrower...

By: The Moderate Voice

The Moderate Voice — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 06:49:33 +0000

States Rights Go To Pot In Supreme Court Anti-Pot Decision

To many — including some conservatives — the

By: BigFire

BigFire — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:31:59 +0000

The people most directly affect by this ruling is not the user, but rather, the doctor who prescribes the marijuana. The only thing the court ruling affect is the ability for any doctor who wants to be able to continually legally prescribe anything without loosing his license from DEA.

By: PAXALLES

PAXALLES — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:49:57 +0000

POT-omac Watch - High Court Mows Down Medical Grass Use - Cancer Sticks'Keep Congressional TobacKing

High Court Strikes Down Medical Pot Use - Cancer Sticks' Effects Get a Pass
from the Congress

By: MikeT

MikeT — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:30:24 +0000

Actually I believe your analysis is lacking here. The danger with this ruling is that it doesn't address interstate commerce at all, but rather activities which are not even commercial at all. The court has just ruled that if a cancer patient grows their own pot, doesn't sell it and jealously guards it from others, that they are still engaging in interstate commerce. How, precisely, are they still engaging in interstate commerce? The federal government doesn't have constitutional jurisdiction in such a medical case because in no way could the person be construed as having been involved in illicit interstate commerce. I think the AP's headline is actually very appropriate since the court just arbitrarily expanded the federal government's power and I don't see why you're lauding them upholding an existing and bad ruling.

By: Accidental Verbosity

Accidental Verbosity — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:57:00 +0000

Dude.

Have I mentioned that I have a crush on Clarence Thomas? I don't know why I bother getting surprised at anything the SCOTUS does these days, but this is some wacky shit. Not the least of the wackiness is that Sandra Day O'Connor landed on the...

By: Pennywit.Com

Pennywit.Com — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:40:33 +0000

But Dude ... It's for Glaucoma ...

The fight went all the way to the high court, but in a blunt opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens saw through the haze and made hash out of arguments ...
I'm sorry. People have glaucoma, and puns are not appropriate.
In a doobie-us decision ...
Ahem....

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:21:45 +0000

Guys, guys: read the op (or Scalia's concurrence) & get back to us, okay?

By: Lowell R.

Lowell R. — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:45:55 +0000

The reasoning, I suppose, is that it would be hard for the government to differentiate between legitimate (i.e., medical) marijuana and that grown illegally. Therefore, non-medical marijuana users may be tempted to grow marijuana in their own yards, thus reducing demand for others' marijuana, thus driving down marijuana prices, thus affecting marijuana sales -- and some of those sales are bound to be interstate.

Quite a stretch, to say the least.

By: Truth. Quante-fied.

Truth. Quante-fied. — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:45:54 +0000

Court Says No to Medical Marijuana I'm not sure I agree with that expansive of a doctrine, but since I'm against medical marijuana, I'm okay with it for right now (may change when I actually read the opinion).

By: Secure Liberty

Secure Liberty — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:37:49 +0000

Federal Mairjuana Laws Stand

In a decision that is hardly suprising, the Supreme Court ruled today that federal laws making marijuana use illegal still apply even when state law permits medical or other use. (H/T Wizbang) The Supreme Court ruled today that the federal government h...

By: Randy Stackhouse

Randy Stackhouse — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:26:25 +0000

I hope the "interstate commerce" starts happening again.

I FIRMLY believe this Federal MJ ban could now be used to override ANY state right.

That is ... for example... the right to collect state sales tax for intrastate traffic (e.g. Internet purchases)

Randy

By: Signifying Nothing

Signifying Nothing — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:41:34 +0000

The Supreme Court creates more work for me

I?d personally like to thank the Supreme Court for announcing its decision in the medical marijuana case Gonzalez v. Raich (nÃ© Ashcroft v. Raich) today. I guess the silver lining is that I have a week before I actually have to talk about the case in my...

By: LJD

LJD — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:41:09 +0000

I fail to see how what one does in the privacy of their own backyard has any "substantial effect on interstate commerce". "...because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs." First, is there any connection at all to medicinal marijuana users and commerce with violent criminals? Second, doesn't increased production in the U.S., by simple principle of supply and demand, actually reduce the amount imported by violent criminals? But as long as a middle-aged male can choose from three or four different types of boner-pills, while cancer patients suffer, well, I guess that's o.k. (note sarcasm). The flip side of this coin is how will Federal Government make local governments to enforce their law. Certainly they don't have the resources to go after every personal-use grower. I suppose that renders this to be nothing more than political window dressing.