Supreme Court says No to Medical Weed...
 

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

strike one for medical marijuana

Supreme Court = Strike three...

I'm thinking they have to start at the bottom again... :(

what a bunch of bullshit

it helps a friend with his MS alot

Same for a friend of mine.
The supreme court must be really narrowminded....

If you thought the "War on Drugs" was bad before, just wait. This decision has given the government "cart blanche" to overrun your homes. States Rights is now a moot subject as it is now practically non-existent, through this ruling. This is one decision, folks, you HAVE to read, word for word!

Rheinquist will leave the court without a legacy now. Or, at the least, he'll leave with the destruction of States Rights, as we've known them. Smooth move, Bill!

yeah, cant argue with you there. but do you ever think its just going to go away? i dont think so.

RoeVWade received its ruling years ago, and still its an issue that could easily return again within the supreme court system.

This administration isn't going to be happy till we're all carrying bibles in one hand and a copy of the 10 commandments in the other. Fucking ridiculous!!

Hell I thought it was already legal

It surprised me that Justice Stevens wrote the opinion and that it was 6-3

again it looks like the government lost their way and is focusing on the wrong shit again :mad:

Today's decision doesn't actually change any laws. It just says that states may have their laws allowing it but the feds can still arrest anyone they want despite the state laws.

I think this is bigger than the current admin... In fact, last I checked No supreme court judges have been appointed by this admin...

I'm not defending the current admin, but its a bigger enemy than you think, if you choose to only believe it's only the current admin that is the problem and wants to control your personal liberties... :pimp

what are you talking about? its legal over here ;))))

When I had Malaria in Africa, Marijuana saved my ass.

will be legal when http://www.technord.com/tech_images/...fr/pfizzer.gif is the one selling it.


Note to marijuana growers: give political contribution to GOP next time.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

how true indeed.

It was the Bush admin that appealed it to the supreme court though. This once again shows these fucking conservatives could give a shit what the majority wants and is only interested in its own agenda.

all this talk about weed makes me want to get high...

http://www.countryfest.mb.ca/photos/photo28.jpg

bullshit
http://members.chello.se/harryperoni...holy_shit2.JPG

FYI, If CNN is to be believed:

"Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented."

So that means the justices nominated by Democrats all voted to let
the feds prosecute medical marijuana users, and the Republican
apointees were split. This issue is a mix of drug policy and states rights
so that why the split was such an odd one: each judge had to decide
which was more important.

:2 cents: :pimp

what's the date on that article.. can you post a link to it?

sounds old like old news....

It was today 6/6, go to any of the wire services and it's the top story...

I agree with your statement, but I was referring to the administration being responsible for appealing it to the supreme court. But you are very right, the problem is deeper than just the current administration, and it just keeps getting worse.

I was just going to say that the pharma companies give too much money to the government for them to let a natural alternative in to compete.
You beat me :) :thumbsup

that's soo much bullshit

The abusers fuck it up for everyone else! What else it new! :mad:

everything should be made legal.

I agree, Weed is gods gift!!!! :Oh crap

see sig, losers

That's fucked up...

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

:321GFY

Maybe if the lawyers weren't stoned it would have turned out differently.

What does this have to do with being democrat or republican?

Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California

Last time I checked states like Alaska and Montana are nortoriously republican. In fact at least half these states have republican governors.

The Bush administration doesn't support state's rights.

Just like when they took the 2000 election to the federal courts.

another reason to move to canada

Sorry,

It was my mistake to say Justice Rheinquist opposed. He WAS with the Dessenting faction.

You can read everything here:

Opinion of the Court - Decision - Justice Stevens

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZO.pdf


Concurring Opinion - Justice Scalia

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZC.pdf


Minority Dessenting Opinion - Justice O'Connor

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf


Separate Dessent - Justice Thomas

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf


In the "Adult" business, you should pay close attention to the Dessent written by Justice O'Connor. She brings up a legitimate point of "what personal activity now is OUTSIDE the reach of Congress?" The answer, none, as of today. That includes you, your business and your computer, to say the least.

bummer...

he's a republican... most weed smokers i would say are democrats.. probably 70/30 imo.

dam that really sucks for alot of americans, i agree with the medicinal purposes for medical weed, and only a bunch of religious idiots would ever try to take it away from people who suffer from chronic pain and others who are dying.

really crazy how the USA is when it comes to drugs, i mean here in Calgary although its not legal you can roll down the street and spark a joint at a light and people will look over and laugh.

weed does not kill!

Says the ignorant drunken faggot.

So much for Federalism.... The Court has been gradually moving on expanding state's rights in regards to interstate commerce since the Lopez decision of the mid-90s. This is definitely a step back and a reaffirmation of the 1930's and 1940's style Big Government (read: Federal government) powers.

Supreme court expects for better packaging and marketing where the Government could earn enough money from it.LOL