"Mind if I do a J?"

Justice Scalia: "Counselor, don't you think that the federal government does have a compelling interest to control the manufacture and distribution of an illicit narcotic that overrides a state's determination that it is medicinal?"

Counsel for the State of California: "Well, you see, Judge, that's what they WANT you to think, man, because they know that if we can, that is, uh, that the states can just tell Congress to, uh, you know, that it's not compelling when you have, uh... what was the question?"

Well I am certainly interested to see how this case turns out. On the one hand it is a matter of State's rights. Do states have the right to set their own drug laws, or does the federal government have the right to regulate the drug trade using the interstate commerce clause. In this case California specifically used marijuana that was grown and sold within the state so there was no interstate commerce. Ashcroft will have to argue that there is some sort of indirect interstate effect from medicinal marijuana that is so negative that there is a compelling reason for the federal overnment to hold onto its regulations. This is also challenging the antiquated and destructive policy of drug prohibition. If it can be shown that marijuana has medicinal uses (as it is being shown pretty well right now) then this will start to open the door to legalizing marijuana, as well as many other drugs and hopefully ending the illegal drug trade and the War on Drugs which costs billions of dollars a year and causes the deaths and incarcerations of thousands of citizens. Unfortunately, some people will use that second point as a reason why marijuana should not be allowed to be used as a medical device.

If the Supreme Court rules with the states, does that mean Oregon, Washington, and California will get the pot back that the DEA took when they raided all the co-op grows?

I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that marijuana is dangerous. Unless severe cases of the munchies and bloating are dangerous.

The Shoveler:

If it has no "medicinal value", why is it illegal in the first place?

Rumor has it, Dupont's new fabric "Nylon", was about to come out. They felt that industrial hemp would out compete their new fabric. So they lobbied the government to get hemp products made illegal. Marijuana went along with that.

That's just a rumor though, I don't know how much validity it has. I'm of the opinion that if it was good enough for our Founding Fathers to grow and use, it's good enough for us. Then again, those dead guys don't know what's good for Amurricuh.

The Shoveler: If it has no "medicinal value", why is it illegal in the first place?


Amen. As question_dj stated, it became illegal in a tax bill during prohibition in an effort to protect Dupont's revolutionary product: Nylon. A new way to process hemp had been invented, making Nylon the more expensive raw material.

BTW, Dupont is selling off its Nylon manufacturing divisions now. Perhaps we can start making clothes out of hemp grown in the US again.

Woo! I was correct!

Technoblake:

Do you have a link to more information about the bill and such? I'm curious.

Isn't Rehnquist undergoing chemotherapy right now?

I would think that would give him a unique perspective on the situation.

Just Ignorant:

Isn't Rehnquist undergoing chemotherapy right now?

I would think that would give him a unique perspective on the situation.

I was thinking the same thing as I was reading the article. I wonder if he'll partake to get some personal perspective on the situation. It would be relieving. I know I would like to use marijuana to treat my RA.

NyQuiLlama:

I thought that Mary Jane helped people with their appetite and glocoma. Also, I can tell you that it's a great hangover cure and all around pain-killer.

Legalize it.

I've never had pot help with hangovers. Anti-oxidants always did the job for that. Pot helps people with MS and RA as well.

Just Ignorant: If Rehnquist were currently undergoing chemotherapy, it could be a conflict of interest for him to hear the case. I don't know in what state he resides, but I am sure he is undergoing treatement in the DC area, and I don't believe that DC, Maryland or Virginia have approved marijuana for medical use, so it's probably not much of a potential conflict. That said, judges should generall recuse themselves from hearing cases in which they have a personal interest in the outcome.

On a side note, I would want Rehnquist on this one given his history of coming down in favor of states' rights, which is really what this question is about. The Bush Administration's position is antithetical to true conservatism on this issue.

Nabb1:

If Rehnquist were currently undergoing chemotherapy, it could be a conflict of interest for him to hear the case.

Is having a deadly illness considered a "conflict of interest"? I mean, it's not like he's golfing with Cheney--he's simply enduring an aspect of the human condition. I would think a court that dismissed life's experiences from its decisions would be a poor court.

NyQuiLlama:

I've never had pot help with hangovers

Well, it takes care of any headaches and it makes you thirsty so you drink alot of fluids. The biggest cause of a hangover is dehydration, so that problem solves itself. You may still feel a bit tired, but drink some caffine. Then, any multi-vitamin will take care of your need for vitamins B1 and B2.

Rinse, repeat, wipe hands on pants, drink another case, pack another bowl.


Hmmm, doesn't work that way for me. I usually just hit up the smoothie place across the street, get antioxidants and hangover blend mixed in. About an hour later things start to clear out. Then I pack a bowl. =)

Just Ignorant:

Is having a deadly illness considered a "conflict of interest"? I mean, it's not like he's golfing with Cheney--he's simply enduring an aspect of the human condition. I would think a court that dismissed life's experiences from its decisions would be a poor court.

I read in the CNN article that he would be working from home.

If I was Rehnquist, I'd practically feel obligated to try smoking pot to see whether it helped or not.

It will be interesting to see how this comes out because we will be able to pick out the complete farking hypocrites on the supreme court.

Scalia and Thomas, who are constantly frothing at the mouth about the intrusion of the federal government into the rights of the states (at least on affirmative action and abortion issues) will have a tough time justifying themselves here if they side with the Bush administration.

The argument that Congress can apply criminal penalties through the interstate commerce clause is completely laughable. Saying the ICC is appicable to some woman smoking home grown weed on the rationale of "well, drugs are bad" gives the feds virtually unlimited power over the states. It will be hard for true states rights advocates to take that position.

My guess is Scalia, who shows glimmers of intellectual honesty and understands the power of stare decisis, will side with the states on this one. Bush's lapdog Thomas will dissent and side with the feds.

Just Ignorant: The conflict issue has nothing to do with his personal perspective on his own experiences. If the Court's ruling would ultimately affect whether or not Rehnquist had a particular treatment available to him, then, yes, his hearing the case could pose a conflict of interest, as his own personal interests could influence his decision. It would be slight, in my mind, and I don't think it is an issue, as I said, because I don't think medical marijuana is available where Rehnquist is currently treating.

We, the American medical community, have such a ridiculous attitude toward alleviating suffering in chronically ill patients. The fear that they will somehow become addicts or the puritanical notion that euphoria inducing drugs are wrong prevents us from adequately treating pain and suffering in patients with chronic and/or terminal diseases. As a physician, its very disheartening to see politicians use these issues for their own gain.

And I will bet you that GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the anti-nausea drug, Zofran, is spending huge amounts of money lobbying congress to suppress research on medical marijuana.

I don't subscribe to the view that marijuana is harmless since, first, you're inhaling smoke into your lungs and second, marijuana is frequently abused and can lead to demotivation and memory loss. However, its not going away and I think regulating it and using the resources to quash really evil drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth makes much more sense.

As long as alcohol and tobacco are two of the biggest campaign contributors, there will be litte room for a product that is basically a substitute for both. Bottom line.

Hemp conspiracy theorists in 5...4...3...2...1


/Bet Justice Badhoff-Ginsberg knows where to get good weed!

"Dozens of people, some with blankets, camped outside the high court to hear justices debate the issue."

Great. It'll look like a Phish concert. Good impression.

Mr. Clarence Butterworth is right on.