No Doobage for you, Cancer-boy Posted by: Dale Franks
on Monday, June 06, 2005
The Supreme Court has spoken. Apparently, growing medical marijuana in your own back yard for personal, medical use, after having it prescribed by a doctor, can be prosecuted, because Congress can ban it under their Interstate Commerce powers. Just because it isn't used in commerce, is not bought, sold, or traded, and never crosses state lines, it's still interstate commerce, you see.
Let's see how much this ticks me off. First, there's this comment:
John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
It's none of your damn business to decide what "science" says, you colorless little bureaucrat. If I have a medical doctor—who is, by the way, a scientist—he prescribes it for me, and it for whatever reason, helps me manage my pain, it's none of your damn business to tell me whether it's effective in your opinion or not.
Moreover, the people of my state, by a fairly large majority—and the people of 10 other states—approved the use of medical marijuana. OF course, if there's one thing we've learned in California over the last decade or so, it doesn't much matter what we vote for. Our political elites will tell us whether we can have it or not, when all's said and done.
Even Scalia signed on to this travesty, proving that the only authentic originalist/federalist sitting on the court is...the dissenting Clarence Thomas.
If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Ha ha ha ha! "Limited and enumerated powers"! I swear, that guy just kills me. It's like he thinks we live in a republic or something.
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
Yeah, well, Madison's dead. Much like the Constitution he had such a large hand in creating.
"You wanna smoke pot cancer boy? No, no, no. Not medically proven and you can go to jail for that. But here, have some morphine. Nothing wrong with a little doctor prescribed morphine..."
You can get a freaking prescription for anything these days, but try to smoke a naturally occuring weed and we’ll throw you in county lock up to be Leroy’s bitch for a year. You think you have pain now? Wait til Leroy gets through with you....
Reading this after going through the piece on international opinions reflected in the decision of the Supreme Court and I’m ready to wrap a plastic bag around my head.
Thomas, O’Connor, and Rehnquist dissented. I would like to know how Scalia justified his decision, but even his vote wouldn’t have been enough. I’m really surprised that they could justify this power to the federal government. Dare I ask if the majority of justices were high when they made their decision?
Oh, and here’s a perfect example of a Republican administration fighting to decrease states rights and revoke the decision of voters. That little tidbit will make mkultra squeal with delight!
I hope the feds take this seriously and start a heavy crusade on cancer sufferers. We need to put those people in jail, I don’t care if they are sick!! It doesn’t matter what the voters want, get the jackboots from the DEA out and stamp out all the little gardens where nauseous people grow their stash! Bring the troops back from Columbia put them on the real drug problems we have. After we clamp down on the terminally ill, then maybe we can get back to enforcing the immigration laws.
Oh, and here’s a perfect example of a Republican administration fighting to decrease states rights and revoke the decision of voters. That little tidbit will make mkultra squeal with delight!
Wish I could .... But it is little difficult to celebrate a decision that will effectively cause sick people to suffer pain.
Speaking of that, Oregon’s assisted suicide is next on the chopping block.
The next time the Bush spouts off about freedom and democracy, remember today. What a loser.
Well to be entirely fair its not like the precedent allowing the federal government reach far beyond its original jurisfiction is anything new, or can even really be blamed on the current court... Given legal precedent and the law, they made the correct decision legally, even if it is one that I would personally disagree with.
I don’t blame the justices that much - but this case should put to bed any notion that the court is in some way "liberal."
The fault in this case lies at the feet of the Bush Administration. They did not have to bring this case - they had the discretion to not bring it.
So why did they? War on (some) Drugs? Plays well with the evangelical base? To get back at Blue States? Just cause they can? All of the above?
What is really pitiful is that in most states the amount a typical patient may legally possess or a typical caregiver may legally grow is almost never even near the amount for which the federal government prosecutes. The feds don’t get involved unless there is a major quantity.
More to the point, until the federal government simply runs out of methamphetamine cases - until every last speck of that evil drug is off the streets, the feds have zero reason to waste resources on marijuana.
I don’t blame the justices that much - but this case should put to bed any notion that the court is in some way "liberal."
It should? The final nail has been placed in the coffin of State’s Rights, and you think that’s a Conservative decision?
So why did they? War on (some) Drugs? Plays well with the evangelical base? To get back at Blue States? Just cause they can? All of the above?
Because they seem to believe that marijuana is a problem, and one that the federal government should regulate. Well, I disagree on more levels than I can count. (well, I’ve never tried marijuana and don’t intend to start, but I disagree on every other level) But that’s their reasoning.
Why do Democrats support the continued criminalization of marijuana?
Jon - as deeply as I share your disgust, Reno did the same damned thing. I totally disagree about the law requiring the decision, btw. This is a rather flagrant violation of the constitution IMO. I wouldn’t mind so much if they kept finding stuff that isn’t there if they would just stop throwing out what is.
It is time to concede that only limiting the power of the Supreme Court in some way will restore some of the original constitution. We should restore some of the states rights involved in Amendments 9 and 10 for starters, reiterate the Bill of Rights, and establish constitutional constraints to some of this wild jurisprudence.
If you want to know what I find the funniest, it is juxtaposing the principles ennunciated in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and now Gonzales v. Raich. Not only are they making up their own constitution while ignoring the one that is there, they feel free to ignore their own version of it when they feel like it.
O’Connor seemed as disgusted as Thomas. It’s time to rein this in. What is happening is that federal powers consistently are upheld regardless of the constitution, and individual rights are consistently constrained.
Kelo v. New London may be out soon. I think it will also be quite a revelation to individuals who still care about the constitution.
This wasn’t a "liberal" decision? The majority: Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer, Souter—all liberals. Kennedy—moderate conservative and Scalia, the lone conservative in the majority. Conservatives Thomas & Rehnquist in the dissent, with slightly conservative O’Connor.
Feel free to slam the Bush administration, the deserve it. But just remember, some of the most outspoken critics of the drug war are on the right—Milton Friedman, the former GOP Governor of New Mexico (who actually spoke out when he was governor), William F. Buckley, The National Review, etc.
Opposition to the drug war is something that crosses party lines and ideologies. After reading this blog for so long, you should’ve realized that by now. And maybe now you’ll start to understand the value of giving the government limited powers and respecting federalism.
This is a very good issue for discussion. Yes - there is a small libertarian element on the right that is against the War on (some) Drugs. But all effective efforts at legislating sensible alternatives to this stupid war have initiated from the left. If you deny that, you are simply ignorant.
From decriminilization of personal use amounts of cannabis in Oregon in the 70’s, to the sensible - and intiative-based - reforms in California in the 2000’s with regard to the treatment in the criminal justice system of drug addicts, all reforms in these areas has initated from the left. To the vast majority (but not all) of those on the right, the mere unlawful possession of a narcotic is a jailable offense the can be punished only through incarceration - the loss of one’s liberty. Now showing of harm to others is necessary.
Isn’t it the essence of libertarianism that the government should not criminalize possession without a showing of harm to others? Direct harm?
To someone coming from the left, the marijuana debate is emblematic of the hypocrisy that plagues most - but not all - of the right. I have said it before and I will say it again: If you are a libertarian, I can understand why you don’t ally with those on the left. But given the position of the right with respect to whether one can legally smoke - in ones own home - a plant that grows naturally on this planet, doesn’t the left seem a little less harmless than the communists on the right? I just don’t get it - especially considering that the vast majority of the right has abandoned libertarian principles.
It should? The final nail has been placed in the coffin of State’s Rights, and you think that’s a Conservative decision?
Yes. 4 of the 6 justices in the majority were GOP nominees. (O’Connor and Rhenquist would have switched their votes had the outcome been threatened). More to the point, the decision represents what the right wants: non-activism - deference to Congress and the DOJ. That principle is far more important to the right than the quaint principle of live and let live.
Libertarians will rue the day when they allied themselves with the right. If you really believe what is written on this blog, really believe it, you will agree that the left is far too unorganized and emasculated to take away anyone’s rights. By contrast, the organization on the right, when combined with the zealousness and "certainty" among the religious and quasi-religious elements that make up its base, should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about freedom.
And of course I have my theories about those on the right who claim to be libertarian (freedom loving) and right-leaning (authortarian loving - governmental or not). Girlfriend, can you say "conflicted"?
This is rich. Mkultra’s little recruiting drive. "See, we’re so bumbly and harmless on the left and we totally agree about the drug thing. GIVE IN TO YOUR FEELINGS, LUKE..."
By the way, Coca plants are naturally occuring. So are poppies. Alcohol is distilled from many different plants. Tobacco, if I recall correctly, is a plant. What’s your point? You don’t like where the line between "good" and "bad" narcotics is drawn?
Seems to me most of the outrage always seems to be over the illegalization of pot, not loss of states’ rights. But that’s nice cover. And don’t try to suggest the "scientists" synthesize or extract THC for cancer or glaucoma patients. I remember Montel Williams getting frantic at the mere suggestion: "IT DOESN’T WORK!!! YOU HAVE TO SMOKE IT!!!" Maybe your viewpoint would get a little more traction if you were’nt wearing a peasant blouse to discuss this scientific issue, Montel. And Angel Raich? She’s the martyr people want to trot out? I dare you to visit her web page. According to her, pot is like Dr. Nostrum’s Miracle Tonic - good for whatever ails you. Smoke it for the nausea, rub the bong water on your neck goiter, and use the resin to fix that cracked coffee mug.
Kelo is the case people really need to worry about if you’re concerned about governmental abuse of power.
mkultra: "But all effective efforts at legislating sensible alternatives to this stupid war have initiated from the left. If you deny that, you are simply ignorant."
Okay I’m ignorant. Quick now, name three Dem legislators who’ve taken anti-drugwar positions.
Okay I’m ignorant. Quick now, name three Dem legislators who’ve taken anti-drugwar positions.
(Hand raised and waving frantically...) Pick me, Pick Me!
Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) reintroduced legislation...in the 107th Congress to provide for the medical use of marijuana....Joining Frank in support of this act are Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Conyers (D-MI), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Olver (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
The mentioning of the commrece clause seems like a smoke screen used to stymie the eventual legalization of marijuana. I think that some of the justices feel that allowing medical marijuana will lead to the leagalization or decriminilization of it; which they definetly do not want. As a result they are willing to create reasons for the federal government to prosecute regardless of past precedent on states rights vs. the federal government - "The court said, for example, that Congress can’t use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools." These rulings would seem to contradict their current stance since medical marijuana also has nothing to do with the commerce clause. So much for consistency. These people are out of touch with the general populace and I don’t think that they have enough life experience to be making these kinds of decisions for everyone else. I would be willing to bet that none of them have tried marijuana and that they believe some of the irrational myths about it.
This website - http://www.leap.cc/ "law enforcement against prohibition" makes the most credible and persuasive arguements for the legalization of marijuana that I have ever read. I suggest that you check it out.
> Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) reintroduced legislation...in the 107th Congress to provide for the medical use of marijuana....Joining Frank in support of this act are Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), John Conyers (D-MI), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), John Olver (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).<
BTW, MKultura, the roots of this decision lie with that hero of the Left, FDR. Remember the New Deal? The original decision was to enforce some of its’ provisions even on wheat grown and eaten in-state. But it’s all BUSHITLER’S fault!
