06-06-2005 21:40									#1
	No Medical Marijuana Get a bigger avatar today!

The Supreme Court held today that federal drug laws trump state medical marijuana laws. In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

I see this as a reversal of the recent trend to cut back the power of the Commerce Clause. Cases such as Lopes (Lopez?) struck down the Violence Against Women Act, saying that national problems are not necessarily the province of federal legislation. There has to be a substantial impact on interstate commmerce.

Here, people grow weed in their backyard for personal use for medical problems. Doesn't seem to fit the requirements. I look forward to reading the opinon.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich

CNN.com

	06-06-2005 21:51									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Another step towards backwardness

	06-06-2005 21:53									#4
	Suffering from ads?

Why are lawyers given primacy over doctors on medical matters?

	06-06-2005 21:54									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I at people who didn't see that coming with this Court.

	06-06-2005 21:55									#6
	Support Apolyton

I knew it was coming, I just hoped I was wrong.

	06-06-2005 22:02									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thomas, Rhenquist, and O'Connor dissented.

Why does the left hate drug users?

	06-06-2005 22:07									#8
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Conservative judges are just as activist as any other but they're activist about different things. They strike down laws to protect women from domestic violence on the claim the government doesn't have the authority to protect citizens from physical abuse ( ) then claim the government does have the authority (under the exact same clause) to outlaw medical treatments prescribed by doctors.

There are medical uses for MJ and as long as the program is tightly controlled and everyone must get a perscription from a doctor then there shouldn't be a problem.

	06-06-2005 22:09									#9
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Thomas, Rhenquist, and O'Connor dissented.

Old Man Rehnquist

Thomas was probably too busy thumbing through a Playboy to listen to the arguments. He probably just flips a coin when they ask him what he votes.

On the other hand, as we all know, Sandra Day O'Connor is a total pothead. High Times's "Man of the Year."

	06-06-2005 22:17									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Everyday, Irak starts to look more and more like the gool old US of A!!

That said, I'm not sure who's copying who here anymore.

	06-06-2005 22:20									#11
	Suffering from ads?

Interesting to see Thomas and Scalia didn't agree like they usually do. A big to Kennedy and Scalia for siding with the liberals on the Supreme Court to weaken States Rights.

	06-06-2005 22:23									#12
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This was a bizarre ruling. If any of the three solid conservatives dissented, I figured it'd be Scalia. What's Thomas doing there...

	06-06-2005 22:27									#13
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ramo This was a bizarre ruling. If any of the three solid conservatives dissented, I figured it'd be Scalia. What's Thomas doing there...

Shi is probably right. States' rights. Or perhaps he's had a relative who could have benefited. When my father was dying, his doctor told me he regularly advises patients to smoke marijuana as it will help with nausea and keep them calm. He is in no way a hippie or card carrying lefty (although he expressed admiration at the commie sentiments of my funeral oration).

	06-06-2005 22:57									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Conservative judges are just as activist as any other but they're activist about different things. They strike down laws to protect women from domestic violence on the claim the government doesn't have the authority to protect citizens from physical abuse ( ) then claim the government does have the authority (under the exact same clause) to outlaw medical treatments prescribed by doctors.

First of all, this opinion was guided by the liberal judges. Secondly the court seems to have some sympathy for the government's power to regulate activites that have some commerical component. In this case, I'm sure the liberal 4 along with Scalia and Kennedy argued that a lot of these plants and seed are coming from over state lines and will affect supply and demand over interstate lines. That would be different than domestic violence, which has a very tenuous link to commerical activity. However, the liberal judges did seem to think it could be regulated under the commerce clause back when it was ruled on in the mid 90s.

The interesting view is on Scalia and Kennedy who'll probably argue that marijuana growth is an economic activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce (which is what Stevens argued for the majority).

I don't agree with it, but the states rights guys couldn't win this one.

	06-06-2005 23:00									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ramo This was a bizarre ruling. If any of the three solid conservatives dissented, I figured it'd be Scalia. What's Thomas doing there...

Thomas is usually more states rights than Scalia is.

	06-06-2005 23:05									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The court sided with the laws on the books. They suggested that the laws should be changed. Lets see if someone in Congress brings this up now.

	06-06-2005 23:07									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

But they also sided with a more expansive view of the commerce clause. Then again, I'm not sure how the med pot laws work. If they allow importation of pot for medical usage, I can see how they'd hit the commerce clause.

	06-06-2005 23:09									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Interesting to see Thomas and Scalia didn't agree like they usually do. A big to Kennedy and Scalia for siding with the liberals on the Supreme Court to weaken States Rights.

A transaction doesn't have to occur in interstate commerce to have an effect on interstate commerce. If you look at the cases in which the majority has restricted Federal laws (Violence Against Women Act, Gun Free School Zones Act), there has been no plausible connection to, or effect on, interstate commerce when Congress passed these laws.

It's established principal that intrastate production and consumption of a commodity traded in interstate commerce has a sufficient effect on interstate commerce to trigger regulation by Congress.

If you took the state's rights argument to its logical conclusion, then most Federal drug law, and hundreds, if not thousands of other Federal laws would be subject to scrutiny. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a liberal v. conservative or judicial activist v. strict constructionist issue, hence Scalia siding with Stevens instead of with Thomas and Rehnquist.

Most supreme courts, but especially this one, are loath to make far reaching decisions that have implications well beyond the boundaries of the case in front of them.

The court is essentially deferring a primarily political issue to Congress, which is something the court has routinely done over its history in political cases.

	06-06-2005 23:13									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I've never quite understood just why the supposed benefits of smoking pot cigarettes couldn't be derived into a drug of some sort. That way, one would get the benefit without the side effect of blackening one's lungs.

Gatekeeper

	07-06-2005 00:33									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Gatekeeper: bongs.

	07-06-2005 00:43									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

republicans are hypocrites. That's why I stopped voting for them.

If they truelly believed in state's rights I might vote for them again.

yes I know the justices aren't republican. But I'm sure Bush had a hand in pushing this through.

	07-06-2005 00:44									#22
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ah, yes. Bongs. The answer to life's mysteries.

	07-06-2005 00:53									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well black market drug dealers will make a lot more money now instead of doctors. Medical marijuana is pretty expensive from what I hear, but it's good ****.

	07-06-2005 01:00									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

http://www.pdxnorml.org/HT_Marinol_0794.html

i think its more about promoting this drug Marinol.
if ill people are not able to grow or buy natural marijuana. then they might be forced to use this
chemical man man one that everyone hates.

its all about money.. it always is

	07-06-2005 01:01									#25
	Full PM-box? Change here!

yep, it's all about the powerful drug company lobby. They lose out when people grow their own.

this country is owned and operated by large corporations. No one sees this.

	07-06-2005 01:53									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui But they also sided with a more expansive view of the commerce clause. Then again, I'm not sure how the med pot laws work. If they allow importation of pot for medical usage, I can see how they'd hit the commerce clause.

If the CNN story is correct, then the fed rules applies even when the marijuana is grown in your own back yard for your own use. If true, this is the most expansive use of the Commerce Clause yet.

Even the Filburn case of the 30's was based upon the fact that farmer Filburn growing crops to feed his own cattle affected interstate commerce because otherwise he'd have to buy his cattle feed on the interstate market. Here, there is no interstate market for marijuana because it's illegal.

I want to read the opinion first, but I wouldn't be surprised to find me siding with...ulp..Renquist and Thomas.

	07-06-2005 01:57									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: If the CNN story is correct, then the fed rules applies even when the marijuana is grown in your own back yard for your own use. If true, this is the most expansive use of the Commerce Clause yet.

Um... no it isn't. It's a direct flowing from the Filburn case. Even though marijuana is illegal, it follows under the same premise that even growing crops in your backyard is a part of interstate commerce. The only difference here is that marijuana is illegal and wheat wasn't, but both are still part of commerce (hell, banning drugs is a part of Congress' power under the the Commerce Clause... it naturally flows from that belief. If you say Congress can't regulate this, then you have to say that all of Congress' banning of drugs violates the Commerce Clause).

	07-06-2005 02:00									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

There are no liberals on the SCOTUS. There are three moderates, three conservatives, and three reactionaries.

	07-06-2005 02:07									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Even though marijuana is illegal, it follows under the same premise that even growing crops in your backyard is a part of interstate commerce. The only difference here is that marijuana is illegal and wheat wasn't, but both are still part of commerce (hell, banning drugs is a part of Congress' power under the the Commerce Clause... it naturally flows from that belief. If you say Congress can't regulate this, then you have to say that all of Congress' banning of drugs violates the Commerce Clause).

That is the logical enpoint, isn't it? Once Congress puts an end to interstate drug trafficking by banning it, then logically interstate commerce will not be affected by intra-state drug commerce. And that reasoning would go double for raising drugs for your own use. At that point, regulation would seem to be to be the sole province of the states as a health and safety issue.

	07-06-2005 02:15									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler If the CNN story is correct, then the fed rules applies even when the marijuana is grown in your own back yard for your own use. If true, this is the most expansive use of the Commerce Clause yet. Even the Filburn case of the 30's was based upon the fact that farmer Filburn growing crops to feed his own cattle affected interstate commerce because otherwise he'd have to buy his cattle feed on the interstate market. Here, there is no interstate market for marijuana because it's illegal. I want to read the opinion first, but I wouldn't be surprised to find me siding with...ulp..Renquist and Thomas.

Filburn is an ag commodity case, but there is also similar decisional law on regulation of commodities such as gas, oil, and the sale of electricity over transmission systems affecting interstate movement of electricity.
The illegality of marijuana doesn't affect the fact that there is an interstate market which the Feds can regulate.