No Medical Marijuana

[Flip McWho]

Awesome cheers. Sounds like a good recipe.

[chequita guevara]

My one and only batch of brownies induced Theben to give up drugs.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah its a long way till I try a bunch of cookies. Don't really have that much excess weed hanging around really.

[chequita guevara]

A dime will do you just fine, and in brownie form will last you a long time. After baking, cut it up into pieces and freeze.

[ajbera]

Well, you can either proportionately reduce the entire recipe; for example, for 1/4 oz, use 5/8 c flour, 3/16 c sugar... or make a full (or half) batch of cookie dough, but just make enough cookies for your needs. So, if 1 oz makes ~ 60, 1/8 oz makes 7 - 8. Make enough dough for 30 normal sized cookies, but instead make 7 - 8 big sized, but normal potency, cookies.

[Berzerker]

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

I must say I'm pleased to see Thomas in the dissent, he's being consistent with his opinion in the Lopez case where he effectively said the interstate commerce clause meant interstate commerce and not "anything under the sun we can tie commerce into".

Think about it, why did the Framers want the ICC? Because under the articles of confederation states engaged in trade wars and the Framers wanted to prevent a source of strife and allow free trade.

Now the power given to Congress to facilitate free trade is being used to ban free trade.

So the intent is being violated, but what about the letter of the law? How did you guys read a power to regulate (or ban) anything that might "effect" interstate commerce into the Constitution? I know why the SCOTUS has let Congress get away with murder by re-writing the Constitution, but how did you guys buy into that nonsense?

If you grow a plant in your backyard, a weed that grows in many parts of the country because of all those hemp farmers from the past when it was legal, how are you engaging in interstate commerce?

That was why Congress didn't use the ICC back in the 30's when they first started down this path. The ICC had not acquired it's modern meaning yet (FDR would soon try to pack the court) and Congress would not argue that a plant growing in a state was interstate commerce. So instead they put a huge tax on cultivation, but that was unconstitutional as well regardless of what the political hacks on the court say. Congress cannot use a constitutional power to invent new constitutional powers, and in that case, Congress used its power to tax to invent a power to single out 1 product and effectively ban it. Taxation was to raise revenue, not play social engineer.

In addition to MtG's correct statement, this reading would allow any drug usage as long as it was deemed to be grown within the state and then consumed in the state. It does have an effect on supply and demand which has an effect on interstate commerce.

How did "regulate interstate commerce" become
"ban any product that effects interstate commerce"? By that "logic", Congress can ban all products. Do you really think thats what the Framers (and more importantly, the states) had in mind when they gave Congress that power? This is just another example of Congress using one power to create other powers that are not in the Constitution.

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.

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can ban what you do or what you grow in your backyard because there are broader social and financial implications? Regulate interstate commerce? It isn't even commerce! And its painfully illogical to say we will make it illegal for you to grow and use pot because you're effecting interstate commerce. That means Congress can force me to buy a Ford Mustang because if I don't, I'm "effecting" interstate commerce. You cant grow and use that pot because by doing it yourself, you aren't buying it and that "effects" interstate commerce. But its illegal to buy! The lunatics are running the asylum...

[MrFun]

Re: No Medical Marijuana

Originally posted by 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

So much for the professed Republican love affair with the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government.

[:) Smiley]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: No Medical Marijuana

Originally posted by MrFun
So much for the professed Republican love affair with the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government.

So much for the professed Democrat love affair with letting you do what you want with your body.

If you hadn't noticed, Mr Fun, all 4 left leaning justices voted for the government and 3 out of the 5 right leaning justices voted against the government.

[MrFun]

"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."


So you really don't think Bush will support this go-ahead, huh?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You fail to notice that it was the majority of Republican judges (not counting Souter, because he sure isn't a Republican anymore) voted against it.

I don't recall the Clinton Administration saying this sort of stuff was legal. The opposite, in fact.

[MrFun]

That's true -- I guess I must concede this point.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't recall the Clinton Administration saying this sort of stuff was legal.

Naw, he just said he didn't inhale.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This isn't a Republican-Democrat issue. Both parties seem to be equally for and against using medical marijuana. And the case turned on defining interstate commerce, with Kennedy and Scalia going for precedent (which is why I wonder why people are so shocked by Scalia's vote.. he probably thought the precedent was the best way to define interstate commerce in such an interconnected world) and O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas going for a different reading of the clause (I don't think they want to go back to the 1920s reading of the clause because of all the changes that have happened in the economy to make that point of view a bit outdated).

[Zkribbler]

Have you had a chance to read it yet, Imran? I haven't.