http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/29/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html To me this seems like an open-and-shut case in favor of the states. The federal argument that the war on drugs supercedes state discretion is a bit shaky when the use of marijuana is as tightly controlled as it is under these laws. People can agree or disagree on the legalization of pot, but this is really about federalism.
It oughta be legalized anyway, especially in medical cases (and no, I've never smoked in my life and have no real desire to, but banning marijuana is ridiculous).
How about a choice for "these are stupid laws of trivial importance and the USSC makes itself trivial by wasting their time with another appeal" And sorry to burst your bubble obie, but the "controls" in California are about as meaningful as the laws against illegal immigration.
I am for the legalization of medical marijuana, and think we should consider decriminalizing any use for that matter. I also think that, when local law enforcement is content with not busting someone for pot, then there is little reason for the feds to jump in. But I am very uncomfortable with the "states rights" argument in this case. The commerce clause is, and should be, interpreted broadly, and this case could be a trojan horse for the scale back that the Federalist Society members have been dreaming about. It is also fair to say that regulating - or criminalizing - the drug trade in this country is something that effects interstate commerce. Some people may disagree with that, or say that it is not the "interstate commerce" the framers had in mind. That argument is not frivolous, but it's not something that I think is at issue here. The question is whether the Court's can carve out an exception in federal laws for activity on such a small scale that it cannot impact interstate commerce, even if the overall activity on a large scale does have such an impact. I think its fair to say that an individual just growing a few cannibis plants in their garden to treat their medical condition, or for that matter for recreational use, is not affecting interstate commerce. But I do not want our federal courts to have to do a jurisdictional test for every type of activity on the ground that it is "too small" in the case at hand. Arguably, a small mom and pop store could say that their activity is so negligible on interstate commerce that they shouldn't have to pay minimum wage, or comply with product safety laws, or a family farmer can say that his activity is purely local and should not be covered by agricultural regulations. My view is that, once the activity can be deemed to affect interstate commerce, then all activity of the sort can be regulated, even if a discrete part, by itself, would be considered "small scale" and not within the jurisdiction of the Constitution. One final thought. I don't think the wording of the poll is correct. The Supreme Court would not be "overturning" state medical marijuana laws. Those laws are still on the books, and a state would not have the police power to arrest someone using medical marijuana. The question is whether those laws can "trump" federal law enforcement authority. Unless the Court makes some REALLY attenuated distinction in this case, the feds probably would not be allowed to conduct a similar bust even in a state that has no medical marijuana law. This is an example of a hard case making potentially very bad law. Normally, the feds don't get involved in small scale busts like this, except if you happen to catch someone in a federal park, or in a post office, or the like, with drugs. But Ashcroft & Co. had to go on a moral crusade against the state of California and middle age women trying to handle their cancer treatments. Obviously, there should be a DOJ directive which says that agents should not waste their resources on crackdowns like this, or perhaps even an act of Congress exempting from the drug laws cases in which the state has chosen to exempt the activity in question (and perhaps a law providing for a nation wide exemption, but that's beyond the scope of my argument). But I have a real concern with the Supremes allowing for such an exemption. If the court, as constituted, does so, they're not doing it because they want to help a couple of people with cancer or leukemia, but because they want to take a broader swipe at the scope of federal power under the commerce clause.
If you were one of the people who was sick and was being helped by medical marijuana or could potentionally be helped by it, you wouldn't think it was such a trivial matter. And as for the way effectiveness of the controls, well that's a different issue.
Just a question to those members of Congress. How many of those 20,000 died from marijuana use? What are the fatality numbers on alcohol, the world's favorite, legal drug? Eventually, the government's energy and focus is going to need to be directed away from the enforcement of these archaic marijuana prohibition laws. I don't favor turning the US into Amsterdam, nor do I favor the legalization of all drugs, but the arguments against marijuana are getting weaker and weaker (including the "gateway" drug argument). I realize full legalization of marijuana doesn't have much to do with the medical marijuana arguments being heard here, but my 2 cents, for what they're worth.
Ironically, Rehnquist is probably hitting the bong while reviewing notes on this case at home, in between rounds of chemo and radiation therapy.
Funny how the federalist view seems to shift depending on the particular issue. A rigid, states-rights conservative viewpoint would suggest the feds cannot intervene. But conservatives want to intervene because the end result is allowing drug use. Similarly, if one thinks that this issue should be governed by the states, one also has to accept the Supreme Court striking down laws like those that banned guns near schools or the Family and Medical Leave Act for state employees. Federalism's a bitch.
None of these stats include lung cancer deaths from marijuana. Second, legalizing marijuana wouldn't reduce alcohol consumption. Instead, it would just expand another problem. The "medical marijuana" issue is totally bogus. I don't deny that it could help a small number of people, but it's an issue pushed by potheads for potheads.
I just hate these weenies on the supreme court complaining that they're overworked when they waste their time on such an unimportant issue. Same with trivial church/state issues, if they've got nothing better to do than to humor a guy like Newdow then they're not overworked. There's no dying people in line at these 'pharmacies,' they're stoners with a purported sore back getting some weed. It's just another ploy by liberals to get their way dishonestly - in this case, getting marijuana decriminalized by hiding behind a few pathetic dying people. Slapping them down for being dishonest does have a little value, but the supreme court should have more important things to do. Since they don't, we should rejoice because that means that all of the significant legal controversies have been disposed.
what about the problem of overcrowding in jails??? do you want real criminals there or pot users/sellers there??? the US governement spend tens of millions a year prosecuting/ convicting just on marijuana charges. do you want your money spent arresting these people or arresting rapists??? or arresting people for selling far more dangerous drugs like herion???? there is a big difference between soft drugs and hard drugs (geuss what.... alcohol is a soft drug, along with cigs). marijuana is not the same a crack. there are REAL drugs society should be concerned with. marijuana is not one of them.
it's not phony..... if you take manhours/money and point it towards convicting a certain type of crime, that takes manhours/money away from other concerns
Subtract the amount we spend enforcing marijuana laws and we still spend more on law enforcement than just about every country.
First, you're full of crap here. Second, you have a problem with the application of the law, not the law itself. Whether or not they should have granted cert is now irrelevant because they did, so get off the fence and tell us whether the feds should prosecute.
You can ask the question of any family who have lost people to drunk drivers. All potentially impairing substances should come with a huge amount of responsibility placed on the user, and ignoring that responsibility should result in severe punishment. Then again, like my wife said this morning when this story came on the radio, no one has ever uttered the words "pot-induced rage" on a news report.
I would tell the feds to ignore pot cases unless it jumped out at them. I would decriminalize pot use. I would let dying cancer patients smoke it all day long. I'd purge the prisons of pot offenders. I would also tell all you liberals that you can't be this naive, you are clearly dishonestly pretending to be naive in order to get your decriminalization thru the back door. And if you come to SF I can fix you up with a pot doctor who can give you a nice prescription for a sore back. Then you can go here http://www.actupsf.com/marijuana/index.htm It's an hilarious 'pharmacy' much better than Walgreens. No smoking, though, except if you have a medical emergency.
Good for you! Yeah, sure, because all those liberal legislatures like in Vermont and Massachusetts are pushing for this. Oh wait, they aren't. In fact, the places with medical marijuana laws include Mississippi and Alaska. You're making arguments like "liberals are going to legalize everything!" like West Virginia Republicans sent a mailing earlier in the fall saying that Dems were going to "ban the Bible!" You're just making crap up because you want to demonize the opposition and feel superior, where in the real world there's no evidence of it. You know, you seem to enjoy lying. Yeah, because getting pot illegally in SF is so damn hard nowadays.
To start, we need fair punishment for drugs. Cocaine and crack is a classic. Crack gets you more time in jail and is considered to be used more by blacks. Cocaine gets you less time and is considered to be used more by whites. After you do the math, remember to also consider that Crack is basicly watered down cocaine.
Maybe that's true for some liberals but not for me. I just don't understand this whole thing - there are countless drugs that aren't legal for recreational use but are allowed by prescription to help sick people. Why does this have to be any more complicated than that?
I can't understand the anti-marijuana attitude of the Administration. My wife has MS but can't legally use the drug even though we've heard and read very promising things about its helpful effects. She can, however, have as many pain pills as she can handle. What is the difference between morphine and "mary jane" in the long run? Well, one is less addictive and isn't manufactured by a large drug company. I guess I have my answer.
There's more to it than that. If pot was legalized, its growth and sale in the US would be dominated by the major pharmeceutical (for medical use) and tobacco (for recreational use) companies. In fact, these companies stand to make an assload of money if pot is legalized. You wouldn't have every pot smoker growing his own stash if he could buy it at the local 7-11, any more than your average tobacco user grows his own tobacco now.