It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Supreme Court Upholds Feds' Ability to Prosecute Medical Marijuana Users

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
.
The founding fathers NEVER intended that the federal government should be restricting person choice freedoms.

This is cultural bigotry, restricting what others do, not because it has anything to do with morality, but simply because these narcotics are culturally unaccepted unlike alcohol and tobbacco. Both alcohol and tobbacco have addictive and toxic qualities that vastly surpass hemp.

Government should not be a religion. You have to come up with a logical reason why something should or should not be restricted.

Just because a majority of people in a society agree that something should be a law, is no good reason for it.

Reminds me of the Chinese exclusion act and other legal absurdities.

When [if ever] will human beings begin to use logic and ethics to govern themselves instead of pomposity and superstition.
.




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I hate to say it but slaves can't do what they want. And that what we all are SLAVES. Most of us was born into it. The Constitution means nothing anymore. It's just something we all dream is real. Something to keep us paying taxes. Something to keep us calm. They hope we will not figure it out and either run away or start fighting about it. For the most part their hopes are comming true. No one will fight for their rights. But some of us will run. Unless a whole lot of us run and well then they will just come and get us if they can find us. They will say we are terrorists or tax evaders. You see you have to pay income tax for 10 years after you escape. The choice is either fight or flight. I have to say I don't see Americans fighting for there rights. To those of my fellow American SLAVES who do deside to run I raise my glass to you and hope you make it. Because thats the only way we will ever be truely free.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I think this is going to backfire...states will still continue to legalize it, shifting the burden of prosecution to the federal government. If they start really going after cancer patients over this, the public awareness and outcry will really hurt the federal government's drug position IMHO.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   



SAN FRANCISCO Jun 7, 2005 — A steady stream of customers filed into the Love Shack, where anybody with a city-issued cannabis card could buy $5 pot brownies or spend up to 20 minutes inhaling premium marijuana that sells for $320 an ounce.

It was business as usual at the medical marijuana club one of dozens in San Francisco even after the Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who smoke pot for medicinal purposes can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws.

Crime fighters in California and other states with medical marijuana laws insisted they were not about to start looking for reasons to shut down the dispensaries. But Dwion Gates, who was sitting next to a pair of bongs, said he's "a little bit shaken."

ABC News



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Wow....Call me an idiot, but I had no clue that such businesses existed in California.....

Funny how nothing's happened yet.....I'm sure it's only a matter of time though - But I respect these people who are taking it like just any other day - Proof positive that actions speak louder than....



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Enron,

The ruling only said that the U.S. federal government can enforce their laws, not that the states have to enforce federal law. The DEA is generally not suited (at least now) to go after these operations.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by futuretense
This issue has always confused me.................someone enlighten me to where the flaw is in my thinking..........

Here's how I see it.............

The active ingrediant in Marijuana I believe is the drug THC...........

Why can't they isolate that chemical and provide it in prescription form to the patient rather that going through the need to smoke it from the plant?

Like how morphine is chemically isolated and used...........

Am I missing something here?



YEAH, YOU ARE MISSING QUITE A BIT.

First we do not need to make this a Government run program with high overhead and need of special taxes to support it. Simply allowing folks to grow their own will be sufficient. No need to allow PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO MAKE BILLIONS ON A MARIJUANA SUBSTITUTE, WHEN THE REAL THING DOES JUST FINE.............FOR FREE!!!! The only reason we do not have cannabis legalized is because ther Pharmaceutical companies cannot make money on it and it would compete with aspirin, ibuprofin etc for pain relief. Without the war on Marijuana , thousands of DEA agents would not have their cushy jobs with under the table money available at every bust.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

YEAH, YOU ARE MISSING QUITE A BIT.

First we do not need to make this a Government run program with high overhead and need of special taxes to support it. Simply allowing folks to grow their own will be sufficient. No need to allow PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO MAKE BILLIONS ON A MARIJUANA SUBSTITUTE, WHEN THE REAL THING DOES JUST FINE.............FOR FREE!!!! The only reason we do not have cannabis legalized is because ther Pharmaceutical companies cannot make money on it and it would compete with aspirin, ibuprofin etc for pain relief. Without the war on Marijuana , thousands of DEA agents would not have their cushy jobs with under the table money available at every bust.


I completely agree. I think the legalization of marijuana poses too high of a threat to many peoples' pocketbooks. It could have an impact on the lumber industry and such, but I think the biggest impact would be the so-called "war on drugs." Law enforcement is big business in the US, and every time we create a law we create a crime. Along with this crime is a punishment and a long process resulting in the justification for people to pay out tax money for their own incarceration. I work in book distribution company dealing with more and more schools who's budgets are being cut. They've cut education spending.....but I guarantee they have thousands set aside to lock me up the moment I commit a felony.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I've been reading various mass media reports on this story and its related updates...

One thing I've noticed is the continued use of the words "pot" and "club"...Often used as one phrase....It seems to be the correct terminology would be "Medical Marijuana Facility"...

At least I haven't seen the word "dope" yet - That one always gets me flustered....It seems the slang is purposefully being thrown around to get a rouse out of people...



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Xphilesphan, it might surprise you to find out that it would be the conservative thing to do, for the Feds to stay out of it. Then, this would be state issue, where it belongs. If California allows medicinal marijuana, it would not effect the onsgoings in, say, Kansas. This being the case, this should be a state's rights issue, and had the verdict been the other way around, it would have been a conservative verdict. Makes one wish the Dems in Congress would stop plying politics with judicial nominees, huh?



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This is a damn shame. I'm not that well versed in US Constitutional Law but this seems to fly in the face of what the USA was founded on. Alot of what is happening lately (within the last 30-40 years) seems to fly in the face of what the USA was founded on...



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Somebody help me out here.

Why is it, in California for example, people are fighting hard for the right to smoke pot legally. That I get.

But then they also push for anti-smoking rules. no smoking in restaurants, no smoking outside or on city or federal property (curently there is Democrat sponsored legislation to this end). Most cities ban smoking in parks too.

It's been discussed by many good Liberal "think-about-the-children" folks of making smoking at home with children to be considered child abuse.

WTF? Is all I can say. What good is it to get the right to smoke marijuana but then fight to make it illegal to smoke?



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Does this mean I can legally manufacture for my own use a fully automatic weapon, or any sort of "destructive device" or AOW as restricted by Federal Law? Or any sort of "assault weapon" as banned?

See, it sounds pretty silly when you take the jutifications used here, and apply them not to a pet ideal that you support, but to something you may not agree with.

Since the justification stated here has nothing to do with suitability, reasons for use, or safety, but the whole regulation of commerce thing, on that sound bite alone, it allows for all sorts of insane nastiness.

I say, keep pot illegal. It keeps consumption down and provides for economic benefits for disadvantaged inner city youth and illegal immigrants.



Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yes you are right about the supremacy clause, but Congress's scope of lawmaking powers was limited to regulate international and interstate commerce. These people were growing marijuana for their own medical use, so I don't see how that fits in here. [/qu

ote]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Does this mean I can legally manufacture for my own use a fully automatic weapon, or any sort of "destructive device" or AOW as restricted by Federal Law? Or any sort of "assault weapon" as banned?


Yeah, sure I do! As long as it's legal by state law...the Federal government should have very little power over our day-to-day lives under the original design of the Constitution.

What I'd like to know is why you think that the elected state governments are incapable of taking care of themselves on this personal level without the Feds looking after their shoulders?



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
What I'd like to know is why you think that the elected state governments are incapable of taking care of themselves on this personal level without the Feds looking after their shoulders?


Because if states do not comply with federal law, and do not meet federal arrest quotas they lose federal funding.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join