supreme court rules AGAINST medicinal marijuana

[del...]

at least state laws haven't been nullified. i just got off the phone with the dept of agriculture (they handle the licensing here) and she said they're doing biz as usual until the governor tells them differently...and our guv is all for the people's vote even tho he's personally against the med use law. it's far from being a done deal...we just need to work a little harder now and pester our congress-people even more to change the law!

yes, it's a major blow but not a knock out...20% of america has already voted it in by a hefty majority with other states pending! my only concern at this time is one of the ladies who took this to the supreme court was busted by the DEA with only 6 plants!!! our state law limits us to 7 at any one time...

del... Reviewed by del... on 06-06-2005. supreme court rules AGAINST medicinal marijuana i found this on aol.....(sorry if this has been posted befoer, but i didnt see it http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050606101709990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001 a stinging defeat it is... "Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully Rating: 5

[marimbas]

All should start mailing the media, to make some preasure that way, tons and tons of mail, make the media talk about this toppic all the time, claim that the freedom of the US citizens is being threaten by this "comunist" government, then a change could happen maybe... but since noone puts any preasure in the governemt anywhere... they do whatever they want, and you are like sheeps being sheeped by a maniac to the slather house

[mytm]

If the economy crashes while Bush is in office we can say God is punishing him because he wont let sick people have their medicine and he will burn in hell for an eternity.

[bhallg2k]

which is why i'm an avid supporter of states' rights, nullification, and secession. My state of Colorado voted democratically to allow for medical marijuana. Rather than just give in to the feds, a state should wantonly defy the supreme court and nullify the court decision, and perhaps write letters of marque to citizens and local authorities to beat the fuck out of DEA fascists.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine if an existing law should even be there in the first place. According to the tenth amendment, things such as marijauana should be left up to the states. Republicans of course will say they're for states' rights, but both parties all try to make the federal bolshevic government even more powerful.

When you say "states' rights," I immediately think of Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and segregation in general, even though I know that's not where you're coming from. That's just the argument racists have used forever to move their agenda forward. Which partially explains why I favor a strong central government and agree with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Justice Stevens hit it right the nail right on the head in his majority opinion: we have laws made by the people (what Congress is supposed to be) that must be upheld, whether we agree with them or not. Anything else, and the judiciary becomes legislative.

The laws should definitely be changed. But the Court was right today.

I just think it's funny that Republicans always bitch about "activist judges trying to legislate from the bench" when a so-called liberal opinion is handed down and today, the only justices who dissented, and thusly tried to change the law in effect (Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor), were appointed by Republicans. How funny is that?

[Delta9]

It's Those good Christian values. What a great, great victory for a drug free America. God Bless the people who passed that bill, God Bless them. And God bless them for their new teaching methods. And God Bless America as well as Allah, Jesus and Buddha. God Blesss a Drug Free America.

[5HT]

the government is not above the constituiton, if it violates that constituiton that was signed as a contract by the States, the states can declare those actions unconstitutional. The sad outcome of the War Between the States was the unleashing of the federal government with no constituitonal restrains.

[marimbas]

It's Those good Christian values. What a great, great victory for a drug free America. God Bless the people who passed that bill, God Bless them. And God bless them for their new teaching methods. And God Bless America as well as Allah, Jesus and Buddha. God Blesss a Drug Free America.

Are you serious?? or are you being sarcastic???

because this is one of the biggest stupidest craps i had ever heard...

[Aleax]

wow...its almost as if america is moving backwards at the federal level...i mean..fuck....whats the point of even having states if the federal government gets the last say anyways, and undermines what the STATE has decided??? this is effing ridiculous...

The Dredd Scott decision precipitated the first Civil War back in the 1860's... which was all about states' rights. Perhaps the Raich decision will be seen by history to be a landmark case as well. How much will shit from the federal government will we take before we've had enough? Is it possible to motivate all of us lazy potsmokers to stand up for what we believe in, or is fear of persecution staying our wrath? Where would the boundaries be drawn if it's fought on the issue of pot? Can't be north/south this time around. May be much more splintered. Revolution was easier to stage when everyone had a common enemy - the British. Civil War was simpler when slavery (which was a necessary economic evil at the time for the south but not the north) was the polarizing factor. Pot is loved and hated by people in all states of the Union. Where do you draw the lines?