The US Supreme Court, in a stunningly hypocritical move by a conservative, states-rights court, ruled that Federal anti marijuana laws pre-empt state laws allowing for medical use of marijuana. It's interesting that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative Republican, dissented. Justice O'Connor is a breast cancer survivor.

Of course - Bush cowboys like only petrol and guns..lol

"Bush cowboys like only petrol and guns.."

None of the current Justices were appointed by the current President Bush.

"The US Supreme Court, in a stunningly hypocritical move by a conservative, states-rights court, ruled that Federal anti marijuana laws pre-empt state laws allowing for medical use of marijuana."

The current court is relatively balanced rather than conservative, and most observers agree that this finding had almost nothing to do with marijuana per se, but rather was a finding balancing state and federal powers, and this case was found in a way that is very similar to other similar cases.

A couple of points. 1 Justice was appointed by Nixon, 3 by Reagan, 2 by Bush #1, 1 by Ford and 2 by Clinton. Consequently, 7 of the 9 were appointed by conservative presidents. The general consensus is that Renquist, Scalia and Thomas are extreme conservatives, Kennedy and O'Connor are conservative, Ginsburg and Breyer are liberal and Stevens and Souter are middle of the road, liberal leaning. O'Connor is sometimes characterized as being more middle of the road because of her support for 1st amendment (freedom of speech) issues and reproductive rights. Anyway you look at it's a conservative court, maybe not nut-case conservative but conservative none the less. The court has come down on the side of states rights in a myriad of matters. One notable exception was Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election, when the court interrupted Florida's recount to annoint Bush.

The marijuana case was decided on a state's rights basis however the impact of medical marijuana on the open market was dicussed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will precisely match the patients' medical needs during their convalescence seems remote; whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, as in Bush v. Gore, I think that the politics of the issue intervened so that the court uncharacteristically came down with an anti state's rights decision. I pointed out Justice O'Connor's dissent because I wonder if she, as a cancer survivor, was influenced by her own personal experience. I'm not suggesting that she was toking up while she was ill, but perhaps she could identify with those for whom medical marijuana is a godsend.

If you are either an insomniac or interested in a pretty extensive discussion of US marijuana poicy, you can see the entire decision at http://tinyurl.com/a4czc

I guess all of us here in the US will have to continue our decade's long program of civil disobedience in an effort to change our laws. Damn, I can't find my lighter.

neuro-- you are probably right that rarely if ever would a state law be permitted to nullify a federal statute; to that extent, the supreme court decision would not be a surprise to most who follow such decisions. but to suggest that the "drug war" is anything but hypocritical seems naive. how sad it is, that the alcohol and tobacco (legal) which causes so much pain and disease cannot be relieved by a little pot because it is illegal. ny

What's lost in this whole debate is that the more 'liberal' justices were the ones who struck down the validity of the California law on medicinal marijuana, while the 'conservate' wing dissented.

"but to suggest that the "drug war" is anything but hypocritical seems naive."

Where did I say that? Where was the phrase "drug war" even used?

I'm actually in favor of legalization of **all** drugs for adults. But having local or state laws that try to trump federal laws is not the way to do it.

Anyway, as was pointed out, it was the most conservative Justices that voted the supposed "pro-pot" side...not because they are pro-pot, but because they are pro-states-rights (to a fault).

Good thing that the EU Constitution is dead. Otherwise, I can’t imagine what it would be like when EU trumps all the national laws, like the federal government trumps state laws. It would be the end of Europe as we know it. There would be no more forum to discuss our indulgence in these pleasurable activities that we enjoy so much, and the only thing that we can talk about would then be politics that we can’t do a damn thing about to change it :(

sorry neuro; thought you were if favor of outlawing pot since you say that the court is "balanced". guess we all agree that our drug laws are ridiculous. i wish that just once, a supreme court judge would recognize the stupidity of some of these laws passed by our legislature. lovebite makes a good point, too. if california wants to legalize medical marijuana, isn't it absurd to overrule them so these poor victims can't get a little relief --because we are so worried about a little weed.

Just you wait - here's the new asshole move of the century:

In H.R. 1528, the "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005" introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), if anybody who sees another person using a "controlled substance", or even hears that it happened, fails to report such use or hearsay to the feds within 24 hours, that person could end up with a MINIMUM 2 years in jail.

This fucktard is saying if you HEAR about someone that took a bong hit - you have 24 hours to report it and tell the feds EVERYTHING you know about this person and the rumor. And if that person has EVER been to ANY rehab (including AA) your sentence is multiplied - or something to that extent.

Will it get passed? Probably, look at the title and who put his name on it. Will it get shot down in the supreme court? Probably, but not until after it destroys some lives in the process.

Just you wait - here's the new asshole move of the century:

In H.R. 1528, the "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005" introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), if anybody who sees another person using a "controlled substance", or even hears that it happened, fails to report such use or hearsay to the feds within 24 hours, that person could end up with a MINIMUM 2 years in jail.

This fucktard is saying if you HEAR about someone that took a bong hit - you have 24 hours to report it and tell the feds EVERYTHING you know about this person and the rumor. And if that person has EVER been to ANY rehab (including AA) your sentence is multiplied - or something to that extent.

Will it get passed? Probably, look at the title and who put his name on it. Will it get shot down in the supreme court? Probably, but not until after it destroys some lives in the process.

Just you wait - here's the new asshole move of the century:

In H.R. 1528, the "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005" introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), if anybody who sees another person using a "controlled substance", or even hears that it happened, fails to report such use or hearsay to the feds within 24 hours, that person could end up with a MINIMUM 2 years in jail.

This fucktard is saying if you HEAR about someone that took a bong hit - you have 24 hours to report it and tell the feds EVERYTHING you know about this person and the rumor. And if that person has EVER been to ANY rehab (including AA) your sentence is multiplied - or something to that extent.

Will it get passed? Probably, look at the title and who put his name on it. Will it get shot down in the supreme court? Probably, but not until after it destroys some lives in the process.

Pros and cons aside, what is so ridiculous about this ruling is the warped logic behind its argument. It is based entirely on the precedence ruling in 1942 on how the court justified the fed has jurisdiction over the state on inter-state commerce.

In that case, the fed said that an Ohio farmer has no rights to grow its own wheat (for his private consumption) because his wheat growing would exceed the agricultural quota set by the fed. The argument was that even though he grew wheat for his private use, because he would not have any needs to buy wheat from the market, therefore it would affect the price of the wheat, and because of that, the fed justified that it is inter-state commerce, and therefore they have the rights to ban him from growing his own wheat!

In this ruling, they argued that even they grow their own crop, it would affect the price of weed in the black market, therefore, they claimed that it is inter-state commerce, even though the weed that they grow were consumed locally and never leave the state.

When the chief justice bought into that kind of argument, not once, but twice, our country is doomed.

Eh, it ain't that bad, the FDA has approved Marinol, which is the active ingredient in Cannabis. They use it for cancer and AIDS patients whenever they feel nausea or to induce a sense of hunger whenever they lose appetite. So in a way, marijuana is already legal for medical use. It's just not the herb, it's the chemical delta-9-THC synthesized in a lab.

This is a troubling decision by the court that would seem to make the 10th Amendment meaningless.

The court has made "intrastate" the newest definition of "interstate."

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the federal government now may regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers, and that "commerce" always had meant trade or exchange.

yeah, but the trouble is that Marinol is a pill and a pill can take up to two hours to dissolve and be absorbed in the gut and enter the blood stream. when you smoke or vaporize, the THC enters your blood stream through your lungs and hits your brain in 7-10 seconds. that immediate effect makes it easier to control dosage -- you can have a little and see how you feel and then have more if you need to; it will take much longer to know the efficacy of the pill. though I suppose some may loathe the side effects which recreational users so enjoy to the point that the pill is the better option.

it's good that Marinol is available no doubt, but I can't help but think its applications are quite limited in comparison to the plant itself.

it's not the first time the Supremes have come down on the side against the herbalists: United States v Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-operative, 2001...and meanwhile Canada quietly carries on with its government sponsored trials of medicinal marijuana.

-paniked

I think the moral righteous fanatics forgot that withholding medicine from the sick is very unethical, unforgivable and immoral.

To the extent medical marijuana is a real issue I agree that it should be a matter for medical experts and not government intervention.

But a lot of the argument, at least in the US, is offered in bad faith...it's really a wedge argument for many to open the door for later general legalization.

My feeling is that the respectable thing to do is to push the pot issue in earnest...to make the first point that if cigarettes and booze are legal, then as a matter of fairness pot should be too as it's no worse than those.

And then, beyond that, present the benefits of legalization...take the market and money away from organized crime, provide better control over access by minors, remove the useless load it places on the legal and penal system, the lives wasted for no good reason, and the ability to "medicalize" any residual problems suffered by those prone to addictive behavior and so on.

Again, medical marijuana is valid, but using it as a proxy battle is not very brave or effective.

The case is not about the legality of pot use. It is about the wrestling match between state right (sovereignty) and federal power.

The verdict of this case is decided heavily on the precedence set in 1942 in the case of overruling the farmer’s own wheat growing, which is a legal crop, nothing illegal growing it at all! Supreme court rulings are based mostly on precedence set in earlier cases. And that’s how they make their arguments.

So it has nothing to do with the legality of the crop they are growing, be it wheat or marijuana. The court decides based on how they interpret the law. As the chief justice said, it is not their position to change the law, they only uphold the law, and if people want to change it, then they have to ask congress to change the law, and reschedule the drug to Schedule II, like morphine and cocaine, which has medical use, whereas pot, which is classified as Schedule I, has no medical use.

Based on the same logic, cigarette nicotine has no medical use either, so why didn’t they classify them as Schedule I drug? Besides, it’s highly addictive, and deadly, causing cancer, if they are so concerned about the health and well-being of its citizens.

The letter of the Supreme Court finding does indeed have almost nothing to do with pot per se...it's about state vrs federal rights. I pointed this out earlier in this thread.

But I think it would be naive to assume that the medical marijuana movement is totally independent of the interest by some to move towards eventual general legalization.