The Supreme Court rules Medical Doobie

[Guest Crazy Dan]

CNN's story on the Supreme Court Ruling Against Medical Doobie

 

Here is a victory over the evil medical pot users. I had a much better thought about this, but I unfortunately erased the post during preview. DOH!! So what do you think? Please weigh in and give your reasons why you agree, disagree, or disagree and believe the War on the Drugs will continue to waste money at huge amounts on trying to quell the supply. Remembering back to my only economics class, as long as the demand is there, you will always find a supplier willing to break the law to bring the demand in the world, especially in the US. Drug trade is a business and it follows the same formula to profit as Fortune 500 compalnies. And now that state law allowed pot growing areas, the supply will be met by groups that have criminal intentions. Somehow I am not thinking of this as a win of any consequence, except now the Federal Government as made it known that they will throw sick people into jail. Oh well, please discuss.

[Ripper 0]

I think the main problem is all of the regular pot smokers. They are the ones fucking up the fight, because noone in their right mind can say they are against medical marijuana. So the government is telling these people that they have to go and take those painkillers that build they build dependencys on, get addicted to, and have horrible side effects when they can get the same results from weed. That is fucking disgusting.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I look at this as positive because it's back at the forefront and could stir debate on the federal level to start making inroads to easing punishments, which would be the foot in the door for partial legalization (like for medical reasons and stuff) and then total legalization.

[Guest Brian]

Eh, I thought this was about Doogie Howser, MD.

[Celtic Guardian 0]

It really shows how politicized the Supreme Court has become. It seems that the current court only uses "states' rights" to overturn left-leaning federal laws, not the federal laws backed primarily by conservative politicians.

[The Ill One 0]

It is the casual, non-medicinal users that screw it up for everyone usually just because the stereotype has been implanted that a lot of people don't quite see the potential in medicinal marijuana. I'd much rather have people smoking a joint to ease their pain then running around as Oxycontin fiends.

 

I'm trying not to be biased about it- but the War on Drugs just isn't doing so hot. It's a nice idea in theory to rid America of illicit drugs but it's not realistic. Hell it's hardly put a dent on things overall besides some seizures and a few big busts. The last even remotely ground-breaking bust was that LSD lab in Kansas in 2000. That's a major blow and there's still some rippling after effects. I guess it comes down to whether or not putting up such money is worth hoping to get another "Kansas."

[Jingus 0]

Goddamn it. This is a big blow to the legalization movement, as it's just one more law that will have to be overturned if we ever want to be able to light up in peace.

[The Ill One 0]

Which will not happen anytime soon. I'm sixteen and I can never see myself lighting up in peace, even if it's to ease my pain in my elder years. Legalization just won't happen...

[Vyce 0]

Ha! Deal with it, hippies.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Ha!  Deal with it, hippies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure. Deal with your unyielding, losing, in vain effort to take the drug problem vis a vis supply side solutions.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's a nice idea in theory to rid America of illicit drugs but it's not realistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except that who gets to decide what's illicit? Are you willing to give that up to someone else to choose for you?

[The Ill One 0]

Of course not, but I'm being realistic. I never gave away my choice of what drugs I use or don't use- but unfortunately they are still illegal. Ideally all decisions on substances could be based on your stance towards it, but it won't happen. I never give up that choice but at the same time, apparently, opinions don't go as far as we'd like to think.

[NoCalMike 0]

Which will not happen anytime soon. I'm sixteen and I can never see myself lighting up in peace, even if it's to ease my pain in my elder years. Legalization just won't happen...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Seeing as under your avatar it talks about dealing with you creativity, I am still kind of waiting for you to show some after this very run of the mill type resply.

[The Ill One 0]

How do you figure I need to have a creative post to bring any sort of legitimacy to my posts? Seems like faulty logic but this isn't about a lack of creativity as much as an assumption. Marijuana's been illegal for 68 years and its laws have been up-and-down. DEA has it in Schedule One which means no medicinal value, the War on Drugs (as unsuccessful as it has been) still has intent of busting dealers of any narcotic large or small, and even though majority adults approve responsible uses of medicinal marijuana.

 

What the Supreme Court said was legally sound but logically, not so much. So if we're (we're being people believing in legalization) the majority now we have to resort to Congress to make a reform for medicinal marijuana. I'm not saying this isn't possible but after medicinal legalization it could open the doors for complete legalization but that's doubtful.

 

There's still that stereotype of smokers that people still cling onto. It's hard enough to ditch a stereotype as an individual so to think of that into a complete whole culture?

 

I'm not lacking creativity here to see the big picture but it's being realistic. I don't actively support legalization but I also smoke marijuana. Perhaps if there was a more effective movement (rallying together in cities and having bold people toke) maybe I'd say there's more of a chance.

 

Maybe long-term is too hard to judge because times they are a-changin' but it simply won't happen realistically.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'm going to smoke it whether it's legal or not, so fuck 'em.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah, it never really stopped anyone before anyway. How many police officers are there in your given area compared to how many people/houses/cars/whatever there are total?

[Lord of The Curry 0]

AoO- You should try and sell that slogan to the Marijuana Party we have up here in Canada.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Forget it, I used to care about decriminalization and that fuzzy warm political pothead kind of thing, now I just do whatever I feel like without fear of retribution. If I ever am unlucky enough to get locked up, I'm going to kill some people in prison.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

This one hits me really close to home. Since my gf has been ill for a couple of years now. She smokes it and it helps give her some amount of relief. Fuck the law if they don't see the truth. I won't have her suffer anymore than she has to.

[SuperJerk 0]

It really shows how politicized the Supreme Court has become. It seems that the current court only uses "states' rights" to overturn left-leaning federal laws, not the federal laws backed primarily by conservative politicians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was 3 of the so-called conservative Justices (Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas) who dissented.

 

So, Scalia's streak of being a Republican Party puppet is intact, but Thomas seems to have suddenly grown a backbone.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

O'Connor was appointed by Reagan but then shortly afterwards upheld Roe v Wade. Amusingly, the bible-thumpers had a knee jerk reaction that Ronnie was some kind of a traitor for this.

 

I don't really have a lot of contempt for her because she seems to not really be as beholden to ideology as one would assume. Scalia, on the other hand, is... Gah.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'll agree that O'Connor usually only gets clumped with the conservatives because of who appointed her, but the other two I mentioned have unquestioned Conservative credintials.