NationStates Jolt Archive

Mr. "Congress can't decide morals, the courts can't decide morals, that's up to the state government" himself sides against states' rights? ((on a bullshit argument, i might add))

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/index.html

*sighs* actually, he did nothing that overturned the state laws. Rather all he stated was that federal laws take precedence over state laws, which they do. Besides which, if state law enforcement doesn't enforce the federal laws, which in all probability they won't, little will change.

*sighs* actually, he did nothing that overturned the state laws. Rather all he stated was that federal laws take precedence over state laws, which they do. Besides which, if state law enforcement doesn't enforce the federal laws, which in all probability they won't, little will change.

I didn't say he overturned the state laws. He does, however, tend to side with states on these types of things.

Nahhh. Hypocrite and liar are words I usually apply to him.

He is a puppet of the Conservative Christian movement.

Christians say "Drugs are bad"

so he says "M'kay"

what i find interesting about scalia is that he actively avoids letting his broken clock be right twice a day

Hardly anyone is really in favour of states' rights. They only say they are when the states are doing what they want them to do.

Hardly anyone is really in favour of states' rights. They only say they are when the states are doing what they want them to do.

In truth, I think we should have a federal law with (at least) and exception for medicinal uses. In truth, I think this should be built into all drug restrictions so that, should a medicinal use be found for any drug, it can be used (within the confines of FDA regulation).

I was really disappointed in this decision, although Stevens, who wrote the opinion, did note that Congress could pass a law allowing medical marijuana use and that it would pass Constitutional muster. I haven't read the decision yet, but the way the case was presented, it seemed to me that the defendants had a very strong case--the marijuana that had been confiscated was being grown in their own back yard, there was no interstate commerce going on, so the feds had no right to step in. The early report I've read on this seems to suggest that the possibility that medical marijuana could cross state lines made it a federal issue, which sounds like crap to me

Like I said, I haven't read the opinion yet, but early indications are to me that I'm going to seriously disagree with it.

I was really disappointed in this decision, although Stevens, who wrote the opinion, did note that Congress could pass a law allowing medical marijuana use and that it would pass Constitutional muster. I haven't read the decision yet, but the way the case was presented, it seemed to me that the defendants had a very strong case--the marijuana that had been confiscated was being grown in their own back yard, there was no interstate commerce going on, so the feds had no right to step in. The early report I've read on this seems to suggest that the possibility that medical marijuana could cross state lines made it a federal issue, which sounds like crap to me

Like I said, I haven't read the opinion yet, but early indications are to me that I'm going to seriously disagree with it.
I got that same impression, along with the bullshit "drugs support terror." Fuck that-the worst thing weed money supports are unathuorized murals. Dipshits in 10mpg SUVs support more terror than a cancer patient relieving thier pain and an AIDS patient getting thier appitite back.

Fuckers. And they keep saying that it's the liberals who want to 'tell you how to live.' That bullshit is too frustrating to be funny.

*sighs* actually, he did nothing that overturned the state laws. Rather all he stated was that federal laws take precedence over state laws, which they do. Besides which, if state law enforcement doesn't enforce the federal laws, which in all probability they won't, little will change.
The problem is that here in California federal agents have been coming in here and 'enforcing' over the objections of local authorities who care more about people in pain than puritanical laws.

The problem is that here in California federal agents have been coming in here and 'enforcing' over the objections of local authorities who care more about people in pain than puritanical laws.
Yep, and they did it precisely because Ashcroft had a hard-on for drug busts. It stopped exactly dick in terms of drug use in the Bay Area and basically wound up harming some people who were just trying to make it another day without being in pain all the time.

Yep, and they did it precisely because Ashcroft had a hard-on for drug busts. It stopped exactly dick in terms of drug use in the Bay Area and basically wound up harming some people who were just trying to make it another day without being in pain all the time.
Exactly.

They could spend the same amount of time, money, and energy improving conditions in the Tenderloin and Mission districts and that would make actual in-roads, but no-punish sick people.

They could help deal with the herion problem in Santa Cruz, using all that 'spirit of intervention' to help set up rehab clinics, but instead they raid WWAM.

Thing is-I can still get it. I might have a better chance now to get it than a sick person does. I'm not fucking concerned with my ability to get it-contrary to what the 'hardliners' would have people believe. If it helps people, for fucks sake-THEY ARE DYING-let them have it.

Hmm. Touchy subject for me, it seems...

I was really disappointed in this decision, although Stevens, who wrote the opinion, did note that Congress could pass a law allowing medical marijuana use and that it would pass Constitutional muster. I haven't read the decision yet, but the way the case was presented, it seemed to me that the defendants had a very strong case--the marijuana that had been confiscated was being grown in their own back yard, there was no interstate commerce going on, so the feds had no right to step in. The early report I've read on this seems to suggest that the possibility that medical marijuana could cross state lines made it a federal issue, which sounds like crap to me

Like I said, I haven't read the opinion yet, but early indications are to me that I'm going to seriously disagree with it.

I've always found the "Rightist" and "Leftist" positions for "potentiality" as reasoning for praticial law, kind of funny....

Thing is-I can still get it. I might have a better chance now to get it than a sick person does. I'm not fucking concerned with my ability to get it-contrary to what the 'hardliners' would have people believe. If it helps people, for fucks sake-THEY ARE DYING-let them have it.

Hmm. Touchy subject for me, it seems...

I must admit, I did suggest to my father when my grandfather was dying of cancer - and not eating for weeks at a time - that they look into medicinal marijuana. I was not aware of the Washington State rules (they do allow it) at the time, but my suggestion was that, should it not be legal for medicinal use, they should find it for him anyways.

Unfortunately, like many of his generation, he views marijuana as a bad and addictive (although most of what he was on was probably much more addictive) drug on the level of much more illicit drugs and wouldn't try it at all - even though it was (according to state law) legal.

I must admit, I did suggest to my father when my grandfather was dying of cancer - and not eating for weeks at a time - that they look into medicinal marijuana. I was not aware of the Washington State rules (they do allow it) at the time, but my suggestion was that, should it not be legal for medicinal use, they should find it for him anyways.

Unfortunately, like many of his generation, he views marijuana as a bad and addictive (although most of what he was on was probably much more addictive) drug on the level of much more illicit drugs and wouldn't try it at all - even though it was (according to state law) legal.
It would have been crossing a line to 'slip him a brownie' but you almost wish you could just to go, 'See? You feel a little better.' But thats not right. Neither is the years of paranoa that generations have built up around the weed. Glacial change is frustrating.

I hope your grandfather gets better.

It would have been crossing a line to 'slip him a brownie' but you almost wish you could just to go, 'See? You feel a little better.' But thats not right. Neither is the years of paranoa that generations have built up around the weed. Glacial change is frustrating.

I hope your grandfather gets better.

Unfortunately between the progression of the disease, the chemo, and the lack of eating, he died several months after my suggestion - but I thank you for the sentiment. Had he tried it, he might have been able to eat, regain some of his strength, and stave it off. Then again, he had a particularly aggressive form of cancer, so he might not have. I certainly think it would have been worth a try, and I regret that we could not convince him - and that it has been criticized to the point it has. Possible medicinal uses for marijuana were postulated before it was made illegal, and they have been increasingly accepted in the medical community. Why the laws must lag so far behind is beyond me

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that part of the reason has to do with the fact that you can grow it yourself, and do so easily. There's no real money to be made in marijuana unless it's on the black market, and Big Pharma doesn't want the competition, not when they can sell you painkillers for a thousand times the cost.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that part of the reason has to do with the fact that you can grow it yourself, and do so easily. There's no real money to be made in marijuana unless it's on the black market, and Big Pharma doesn't want the competition, not when they can sell you painkillers for a thousand times the cost.
After the bipartisan feeding us to the credit companies that just happened, I'm inclined to believe that.

I got that same impression, along with the bullshit "drugs support terror." Fuck that-the worst thing weed money supports are unathuorized murals.
Drugs support terror because they're prohibited. If the government wants to remove drug support for terror, legalise them.

I didn't say he overturned the state laws. He does, however, tend to side with states on these types of things.
True, but he probably looked at the ramifications of his decision. Essentially allowing the states to bypass and ignore federal laws on marijuana usage would declare the entire FDA null and void. Now, one can argue over whether that would be all that bad, but regardless of how he felt about it he probably didn't want to open quite such a large can of worms. What needs to happen is the reasons for banning marijuana need to be looked over and changed. Especially since the original reason for it's banning was because of the opposition the cotton industry had to hemp. It had little to do with the drug itself.

True, but he probably looked at the ramifications of his decision. Essentially allowing the states to bypass and ignore federal laws on marijuana usage would declare the entire FDA null and void. Now, one can argue over whether that would be all that bad, but regardless of how he felt about it he probably didn't want to open quite such a large can of worms. What needs to happen is the reasons for banning marijuana need to be looked over and changed. Especially since the original reason for it's banning was because of the opposition the cotton industry had to hemp. It had little to do with the drug itself.

That doesn't directly follow. It would only allow the states to bypass the federal government on those drugs which the federal government does not allow to even reach the FDA.

Chances are incredibly good that medicinal marijuana would get through the FDA if the federal government would allow the testing. However, the federal government is currently working incredibly contrary to the best interests of its citizens. As such,t he states should bypass it.

However, the federal government is currently working incredibly contrary to the best interests of its citizens. As such,t he states should bypass it.
Then perhaps said citizens should get off their asses and start voting for politicians who actually keep their promises, which excludes most of both major parties.

Then perhaps said citizens should get off their asses and start voting for politicians who actually keep their promises, which excludes most of both major parties.

I certainly can't argue with that. *grumbles about partisan patsies*