 |
|
Topic started on 7-6-2005 @ 02:16 AM by benevolent tyrant
|
On June 6th , 2005, the US Supreme Court fired a salvo against States Rights when the court upheld an appeal that it was against federal law to grow
or use marijuana for medicinal purposes even if it was prescribed by a physician[/i www.cannabisculture.com. It is interesting
to note that the ruling did not preclude the legalization of marijuana or it's use medicinally, or otherwise, at some future time. The ruling
upholds the right of the federal government to prohibit the use of marijuana throughout the US , superceding "states rights". If the issue were to
be argued in Congress, it still might be possible -- some day -- to legalize marijuana.
[edit on 6/7/2005 by benevolent tyrant]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 01:07 PM by lucidvisions
|
This is total bull# .. to think someone sick and dying cant smoke a #ing weed that grows in a natural enviornment . gimme a #ing break. those greedy
dictators want it illegal so they can keep selling overpriced pain meds and make a # load of cash. if they legalize pot then all these pain seeking
patients will just grow there own meds. and the #ing prick bastards will loose all the profits . money is behind everything this #ing gov does..
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 01:12 PM by kenshiro2012
|
benevolent tyrant,
You caught the one thing that is positive that was (not) in the ruling.
As is being commented on by a couple of radio announcers here in Dallas, this ruling actually makes it easier for congress to recind the law barring
Hemp (origional reason and target) and putting into place a law that would actually govern the sale and distribution of cannibis.
I would still not hold my breath for this to happen though 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 01:21 PM by xmotex
|
I was genuinely shocked to find myself in agreement with (ack!) Clarence Thomas on this one. From Thomas' dissent:
Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and
the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
... local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce . . . among the several States." U. S. Const., Art. I, ยง8, cl. 3. By holding
that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to
enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 01:33 PM by clearmind
|
states rights v federal laws. why should states even bother passing laws if the feds can say..' no, we don't like it..to bad.. all your citizens
following your states' law are criminals.' couldn't a state be punished for passing a law that the feds do not recognize or say is illegal??
isn't the state breaking fed law by passing something like a medical marijuana bill? what will or is keeping the feds from picking apart other state
laws?
the dark side is growing.........................................................................
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 01:52 PM by Where2Hide2006
|
U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people. "
I think you all need to go back and read THE BILL OF RIGHTS
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
www.law.cornell.edu...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 04:09 PM by CaptainJailew
|
Its called the supremacy clause, states can not supercede the authority of the (big F) Federal government. If a state decided to make murder legal,
the national government would step in to prosecute them to ensure that the will of the (general) public is served even if the constituency in that
single state supports that law.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 04:15 PM by Passer By
|
Originally posted by CaptainJailew
Its called the supremacy clause, states can not supercede the authority of the (big F) Federal government. If a state decided to make murder legal,
the national government would step in to prosecute them to ensure that the will of the (general) public is served even if the constituency in that
single state supports that law.
True, but how does one take the jump from murder to smoking pot? I mean they let you smoke fermaldihyde(sp?) in your sig's, so why not natural pot?
Where that line is, is debatable. Maybe someone could say it could be wherever there is close to a 50/50 split federally by popular vote. Things like
abortion, MJ laws, same sex marriages, etc could be done on a state by state issue. Ofcourse there is no way DC would give up it's power .... but in
a world where people would do what is right.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 07:07 PM by Where2Hide2006
|
Originally posted by CaptainJailew
Its called the supremacy clause, states can not supercede the authority of the (big F) Federal government. If a state decided to make murder legal,
the national government would step in to prosecute them to ensure that the will of the (general) public is served even if the constituency in that
single state supports that law.
Thats not how that amendment reads to me. to me it says, any powers not given to the federal govt. by this constitution are specifically reserved for
the states and the people.
Supremacy clause ... the people have the power. They are supreme!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-6-2005 @ 08:05 PM by St Udio
|
about the idea that 'home grown stuff' does not meet the criteria of
commerce
or that 'home grown' lacks distribution......well, the FED has this loophole
on October 1, 1937, Marijuana Tax Act,
made it illegal to grow or transfer any form of cannabis
w/o a tax-paid stamp - - which was never made available to private citizens
Article=60542 bytes-> www.idmu.co.uk...
the article notes all the many (about 6) various int'l treaties & Fed agency Acts to prohibit its use... 1920s onward!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
