That's American politics. It's a total waste of time, but it gives people something to bicker about. Stir up a big controversy, create some public outcry, give some materials to the talk show hosts to rant and rave, then every one would cheer for it on *both sides* like a boxing match. That's how laws get changed in America. All you need is some fanatism and righteousness. Is there any need for logic in poltiics?

"That's American politics"

Nobody said democracy was pretty. But I don't think the American flavor is unusual in this respect.

If there is any comparison with similar demography and history, our neighbor in Canada is much more civil in their politics and their laws. People play fair, and reasonable. That's why they are so much more open to pot and prostitution, just an example. They have universal health coverage who value each citizen's well-being. Most canadians don't buy into the religious moral righteousness. They do the reasonable things logically.

Canada is really half-way between us and NL in the poltical spectrum. So I don't think politics has to be ugly.

Having read all the comments on the subject, please allow me to make a few points, the first being that the political convictions of the supreme court justices had very little impact on their decision. Medical marijuana aside, marijuana itself has been illegal in the USA for many decades. Everyone talks about how liberal the supreme court used to be in the 1950's and 60's, but I don't recall the court overturning any laws concerning the drug's illegality, and they remained silent when people were getting 99 years in prison for selling small amounts of pot to federal undercover officers. Bill Clinton's very own "drug czar", whose name I've forgotten, but who was a retired army general, visited Amsterdam and said that America had nothing to learn or gain from the Amsterdam experiment of legalizing marijuana. So I think it is a cop-out to associate arcane drug laws with political partisanship. That perpetuates the problem.

Second, I've just returned from a week in Canada. Anyone who thinks they are entering a paradise when they cross the border are mistaken. If you read the newspapers or talk to the people, Canada is dangerously close to falling into an abyss.

Lovebite is right when he says that if you speak loudly enough then you can get laws changed in the USA. The squeaky wheel really does get the most grease. But people always get the government they deserve, so we have no complaints about our politicians, as we the people put them in power. The political system is broken, not the individual politicians who work within that broken, corrupt system. They're the symptom, not the disease.

we all agree about the stupidity of the drug laws; particularly something as harmless as pot. rarely would somebody running for election in the us confront the overwhelming belief among the body politic that marijuana should remain illegal. and the fact that some cancer victims may have to illegally buy and smoke pot to alleviate the torture of chemotherapy is sad. that's one reason we like amsterdam. but let's not feel too sorry for ourselves as us residents. there are a lot of people in this world who would far prefer to leave their grief and poverty-stricken countries for the chance to suffer with the hypocrisy of us drug laws. ny

Just shows the stupidity of the American government. Quite a few of todays drugs come from plants, all the painkillers do, But if a man want's to get relieve from smoking some weed, it's illegal.What a bunch of political jive! Just remember that most Americans are totally embarrased by the chimp they call George Bush. Seems like the only people that get elected President, are total fools, and have no personality whatsoever.

Does anyone know what the lower courts ruled before it got to the Supremes?

"Just shows the stupidity of the American government."

How many western governments haven't made pot illegal? I think the answer is *none*.

(Not that I agree with such laws).

"Just remember that most Americans are totally embarrased by the chimp they call George Bush."

Just remember that the majority of voters went with George Bush. At least *last* time!

(Not that I agree with him on most issues).

I'm in pharmacy school right now at West Virginia University. I'm a really liberal guy, so I have no intrensic hatred for delta-9-THC being used in clinics, but the idea that the best way to get it in the plasma is via smoking a plant is kind of screwy. The Canadians have developed a sublingual application of Marinol called "Sativex" that enters the plasma through the oral blood vessels. A couple of sprays of that in the mouth would be just as efficacious, and much safer, than a puff of an herb. Why can't we just use this for anticipatory nausea in cancer patients? Well, it's because the FDA has a stick up its ass. Or, even better, take a page out of today's stoners playbook and make an inhalation aerosol solution that could be inhaled without the added tar that comes from the plant.

Still, the utility of Marinol is generally overstated, benzodiazepines and Reglan tend to work better in cancer patients with anticipatory nasuea, anyway.

Perhaps one of the people involved in this decision will at some point need the benefits that Jelly Hash can provide - and they'll have to live with the decisions they have made. Or perhaps their families will need this substance and cannot obtain it.

One always hopes for poetic justice.

You're blaming the wrong people. The court had a "states rights vrs federal enforcement" case and that's what they correctly decided. If the court makes decisions out of turn that's a blade that can also cut against you in the future...be glad they aren't doing that.

Blame the *legislature* (federal, local, state, etc)...they actually makes the laws. Vote in someone brave enough to advocate legalization...and protest those that don't.

"You're blaming the wrong people. The court had a "states rights vrs federal enforcement" case and that's what they correctly decided." That's true, neuro, but the real point is that we have, for historical reasons, a cultural intolerance of marijuana. it's possibly one of the most celebrated symbols of rebellion in our society. so not just the courts, or just the legislature, but all forms of our goverment, as well as other governments, react absurdly when it comes to making and enforcing laws about smoking a little weed. meanwhile many more toxic and harmful substances legally kill millions and nobody even mentions it. it is a distinct and unexpected pleasure, that in my lifetime, i can go to a major city and order a gram of pot and openly smoke it. that, along with the girls, is why we love amsterdam. ny

I really don't think the court would have decided any differently if the substance in question was cat food or nails or bottled water. It had nothing to do with the nature of the product...or its value as a symbol of rebellion or some such nonsense.

It simply had to do with the legality of federal law trumping state law.

Evidence in favor of this is the fact that it was the most conservative members of the court who voted "your" way. I doubt they were voting pro-pot. They were voting states rights.

"I really don't think the court would have decided any differently if the substance in question was cat food or nails or bottled water. It had nothing to do with the nature of the product...or its value as a symbol of rebellion or some such nonsense.

It simply had to do with the legality of federal law trumping state law. "

Your just not getting it, neuro. yes, the case had to do with state's rights. but the big point is that our country has a stupid law about a plant which is relatively harmless, compared with many legal substances. california's attempt to pass a law which takes a step toward sanity, while held unconstitutional, underlines the issues and helps create dialog which may eventually help in legalizing marijuana.
it is similar to the way the court struck down laws in the sixties regarding civil rights on the grounds of "states rights". eventually, congress passed our civil rights act.
if you think that the court decided this case without evaluating the sociolgical aspects of pot, and purely on the "legality of federal law", then i would question your understanding of our legal process. and if you don't think that our drug laws are at least partly the result of fear of the anti-establishment, i would say that you lack a grasp of history. ny

Last Tuesday, an amendment to defund the Justice Department's prosecution of medical marijuana patients in states where it is legal failed in a House vote, but gained 13 votes over last year. The bipartisan amendment, introduced by U.S. Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), failed 161-264, but gained in strength.

As for Canada: "Our neighbor in Canada is much more civil in their politics and their laws. People play fair, and reasonable....... They have universal health coverage who value each citizen's well-being. ...They do the reasonable things logically." I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Plenty of back stabbing and back -room deals and romantic intrigue sex up the politics up north. ( Just google the name of my boss's daughter, Belinda Stronach.) Not to mention the natural conflicts that arise when you have two nations in one speaking two different languages.. And their health care system sounds like a horror show, with patients having to wait months to have an operation. Many of them cross the border to get treated in the USA. Did you know there are three countries in the world where private health care is illegal? That's right, I said illegal. One of them is Canada, the second is Cuba, and I don't remember the third. Would you characterize that as doing "reasonable things logically?" In most Canadian provinces, it is illegal to seek faster treatment and jump to the head of the line by paying out of pocket for public care. Private health clinics have sprouted up even though they are technically illegal.........

I agree with most of what has been said about keeping medicine from the sick etc.

I am a medical patient in Cali
but I am legit, truely sick

I can't tell you how many of my friends and their friends basically went and purchased medical approval letters from medicann and other organizations who are basically regulating the entire medical community. Not to mention certain clubs advertising on hip-hop radio stations and other places where the prime demo isn't the sick but rather the young. These people were not out to help the truely sick, but rather to make money

these people who bought these approvals from things like stress and minor pain are not really sick IMHO, especially my friends who I know for a fact were not sick but merely wanted to be able to smoke without the danger of getting caught. Its funny how so many of these "medical patients" were also doing hard drugs in their spare time... don't sound too sick to me...

we can't have Medical Marijuana and make a joke out of the prescription process
we can't give approval to anyone who says they have a slight pain
we have to make the proccess totally legit
make people PROVE they are sick, and make it grueling proccess
so there are no questions

eventhough I am a medical patient, I am happy to see this ended, because for the legit patients, these clubs and fake patients were taking much more away from the movement than they were contributing

I hope we can have legit medical marijuana in the future
but all these fakers needed to be put in their place

Mr. NY, I agree that in general pot being illegal is based on irrational social prejudice. So let's get past that. My disagreement with you is limited to the motives of the court in this particular situation.

Single issue thinking, which I think is what you are exhibiting here, leads to oversimplification...something that I am objecting to here. Every legal issue which merely happen to involve pot in some way isn't decided on the basis of whether or not it favors pot smokers.

You make it sound as if the court used states rights as an excuse, and that they were really just grasping for a public reason to do what they really wanted to do...put down the counter-culture and it's taste for smoking pot.

But then how do you explain the fact that the votes for the supposed "pro-counter-culture side" came from the most right wing members of the court?

That shows exactly the *opposite* of what you are suggesting.

Mr. JBIG's post makes my point better than I could have. It's fine to support the medical use of marijuana, but to use medical marijuana as a wedge tactic when the real goal is recreational legalization is not only ineffective, it is also unfair to those who are actually sick.

neuro-- it seems we disagree only to the extent that you think the court's motives were not affected by the politics of this decision, and i think they were. maybe i am unduly skeptical. i do respect the supreme court judges for their intellect, but you wonder why ultimately, these poor victims of disease can't get a little relief from their agony with a little pot. especially if it was grown in california. and an exception could be carved out which found that such produce was not subject to inter-state commerce and therefore not subject to federal law. anyway, i think we have both stated our opinions, and no point in further argument. maybe someday we can share a joint in my favorite city without regard to being arrested. ny

jbig- obviously, the medical marijuana movement is supported by a large community of people, many of whom support legalization for everyone. to the extent that you think it either diminishes your chances for success, or trivializes the issue, i suppose we need to be careful not to make things worse. hang in there, friend. ny