No Medical Marijuana

[Zkribbler]

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

[Fake Boris]

Another step towards backwardness

[chequita guevara]

[pchang]

Why are lawyers given primacy over doctors on medical matters?

[DinoDoc]

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

[chequita guevara]

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

[DanS]

Thomas, Rhenquist, and O'Connor dissented.

Why does the left hate drug users?

[Dinner]

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.

[mrmitchell]

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."

[alva]

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.

[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.

[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...

[Agathon]

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).

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.