How it's possible to be simultaneously correct and wrong
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
The arguments of the majority in this case appear to be "Well, it IS, after all, federal law". They were presented with an opportunity to legislate from the bench, and they refused to do so, an act for which I think they are to be commended.
But, dang - this is such a silly issue for which to have a controlling federal law that it begs for some form of quick legislative solution.
No, I'm not a capital-L Libertarian who believes that all drugs should be legal. In fact, I'm not certain I even have an opinion on the matter, to be honest with you. But this smacks of a matter to be decided locally, particularly since marijuana is among the more benign substances with which Americans self-medicate.
A good friend of mine lives in Mendocino County, CA, and the law there is that pot's OK, for medicinal purposes or any other. I've noticed nothing untoward in my visits to the area, other than the fact that some of the residents are a little more intentionally (faux?) laid back and environmentally wacky than I prefer, but I attribute that to something other than the killer weed.
And no, I don't give much weight to the claims that smoking pot makes you terminally stupid. For that, you can just go sniff the air in Pasadena TX.
on
| § 10
§ 10 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Why, o why does the Supreme
Why, o why does the Supreme Court hate our freedom!?!?
What's interesting about this
What's interesting about this decision, absent a close reading of the various opinions, is that at first approximation all the "liberals" were in the majority, and the 3-person dissent was all conservatives. So much for Bush's right-wing lapdogs carrying out his will, nu?
The song clearly states that
The song clearly states that "EVERYBODY must get stoned".
Not just sick people, or people in Mellow, CA, or the Deliverance set in Shitheel, TX. Everybody.
That includes Supreme Court justices too.
I don't smoke, myself, but find all the brouhaha over it kind of amusing. I can't think of a drug or substance that makes people more docile than weed; it's really only dangerous to cookies.
Also, this is the first time
Also, this is the first time I know of that I have substantially agreed with Clarence Thomas. His opinion is teh R0x0r. I often find parts of his opinions compelling but find his strict constructionist orthodoxy leads him to construe laws in strange ways in order to fit 21st century actions into 18th century grammar. This time, however, I think he nailed it. 'if the 'necessary and proper' clauses of Article 1 (and the commerce clause?) include confiscating herb grown in the home for home use, then all curbs on congressional power are in reality rendered meaningless.'
I am fairly certain that this is the first time anywhere that Clarence Thomas has been declared teh R0x0r.
Thomas nailed it in one. Have
Thomas nailed it in one. Have you read Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution? He makes much the same argument about the tendency toward overreach when applying the necessary and proper clause, as well as to the "presumption of constitutionality."
I want to be free to not
I want to be free to not smoke weed. Wait, I already am free to not smoke weed. I want to be free to smoke weed, and then not smoke weed.
This is why pro-maryjane legislation is hard to pass. Nobody listens to the dopers, postheads and fishfanatics. Rabid temperance-addled crime fighters make any legislator who tries to lighten up a bit look like a commie. And I'm not going to fall on my sword for the right to choose not smoke the reefer.
Thomas and Scalia are two of the only true conservatives in positions of great power in government. The rest are merely Republicans.
I'll admit that I read not
I'll admit that I read not much more than the headline and the AP story, so my view of this matter wasn't fully-formed when I slapped the post together, but some of you (you know who you are!) dug deeper, and I feel a small correction to my post is in order.
I think the problem here might be that pot is misclassified as a controlled substance. Throwing out the entire Federal statute, when, let's be honest, some of that stuff ought to be regulated at a federal level, would have been problematic. That said, I second the emotion on Thomas and his way of thinking on the matter.
Johno writes: teh R0x0r
Johno writes: teh R0x0r
Hm. There appears something wrong with the font you guys use. I was going to chastise non-geek Johno for spelling 1337 h@x0r sp33k with letters instead of zeroes, but I see now after pasting into the text box that it is with zeroes.
That's too bad. I hope the stuff I've written doesn't get transformed back to 'leet haxor speek', or I would look like an ass.
On pot. If you want to smoke it, do. If you don't want to smoke it, don't. If you want to smoke it where I can smell it, I'll pass a law saying you can't smoke in restaurants because I'm an asthmatic (nightclubs are another story). And if you're a creepy fucker burning sage, don't tell me it's therapeutic, asshole. It's particulate matter which irritates my lungs as much as the fucking odor does. Bullshit on your 'religion' when it interferes with my health.
Thank you, good night.
Mapgirl, so I guess public
Mapgirl, so I guess public consumption of pot brownies is cool with you?
B- Well I'm not aware of
B- Well I'm not aware of someone stoned on a pot brownie ever hitting on me or been creepy weird towards me during it's consumption, so I'm going to have to suspend judgement on that for now.
But basically, I really don't have a problem with stoners. Moonwalkers on acid, whole 'nother story.