No Medical Marijuana

[The Emperor Fabulous]

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.

[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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[Gatekeeper]

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

[mindseye]

Gatekeeper: bongs.

[Dis]

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.

[Gatekeeper]

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

[Kidlicious]

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 ****.

[boann]

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

[Dis]

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.

[Zkribbler]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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).

[chequita guevara]

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

[Zkribbler]

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.