Medical marijuana -- So much for state's rights.

Doesn't specifically deal with the Oregon medical
marijuana law? I don't know.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aBLMqstfQ7rc&refer=us#
Medical Marijuana Effort Loses at U.S. High Court (Update2)
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the medical marijuana movement, ruling that federal narcotics laws ban the drug even when it never crosses state lines and is used only to relieve pain or nausea.

The justices, siding with the Bush administration, today said Congress's power over interstate commerce is broad enough to cover locally grown and used medical marijuana. The 6-3 ruling overturns a decision that favored two California women, including one who says cannabis relieves life-threatening symptoms.

The majority said California marijuana users Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson must turn to ``the democratic process'' for a change in the law. ``The voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in Washington.

California and nine other states exempt seriously ill people from laws banning cultivation and use of marijuana. Today's ruling means people in those states will face the risk of federal prosecution if they use or distribute marijuana.

The Bush administration said the lower court ruling would undermine its efforts to enforce anti-drug laws.

The case brought into tension two themes of the court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist: the limits it has imposed on the federal government and the latitude it has afforded law enforcement officers. Those issues produced an unusual breakdown among the nine justices.

Basically what they were saying is that states have no power to overturn a Federal law. The sates themselves can decriminalize or legalize pot but they cannot do it on a Federal level.

So the state won't prosecute but the Feds can? So
something can be legal in a state and illegal at
the federal level?

Now I'm even more confused.

Now its implied that the state must rectify this situation that is why the Feds appealed the decision of the lower court. If they don't start towing the line the Feds and this has been done by all administrations will threaten to cut off some type of Federal funding.

Okay, I got that.

Did this decision impact Oregon in any way? Docs, patients,
the list of folks with cards?

I guess that's what we get for being Blue.

The can at anytime arrest the docs, patients and the folks with the cards and charge them under Federal law or the Feds can now bring pressure on the state to bring them to heel and revoke the law. Till California revokes the law the cops wont be out busting people for pot.

My neighbors obtained a license to grow and use it. It's fine if they need it, but they are abusing it. They grow and sell it to the teenage friends of their children. Their house is a drug house and it is legal for them to have it. The local police know what is going on and they have done nothing to stop it. So, we have drug deals going on in a cul-de-sac with lots of young children living there. Not only that, a lot of the teenagers visiting will get high then drive off. Ack! So, how do you handle people who abuse the law?

Sounds like cops and payola maybe?

Some numbnuts always has to mess things up for
the rest of us.

provide ammo for the banners of all types.

Unfortunately, a few docs have begun prescribing the stuff for "maladies" for which there is no evidence of benefit. One doc has even prescribed the medication to people with anorexia, theoretically to increase their appetite. Umm. Except lack of appetite isn't the issue with anorexia, so the doc, IMHO, ought to be tagged for malpractice. I guess, like with any medication and medical tool, regulation must be spelled out to the T.

That said, I still find this result unbearable, whether or not its meets the law to a T. And I'm not so sure that it does, as the states are supposed to be able to act independently in order to develop new ways of treating people. At least that's my previous understanding of it.

medical practice. I'm sure the OMA would like to hear about this person.

Or your city council person. I had a meth lab up the street and one call to the mayor and police chief got the thing permanently busted within a week. You have to tell them you're watching, taking down license plate numbers, and will expose any death or tragedy that happens because the city ignored it. Scares the pee right out of 'em.

I hate that part of medical MJ too, but they'd be doing it anyway. I've had my teen-age daughter tell me about friends' parents who sold pot "for a living". Personally I think that's more due to the lenient possession law than the medical law. But either way, it stinks and we do have a bit too much pot use in this state I think.

should be enforced, not that it's a bad law.

I've lived across the street from a "drug house," (no medical marijuana card involved), and, despite numerous pleas from the neighbors, the police just never got around to doing anything about it. I think it just wasn't a high enough priority.

Fortunately, the people eventually were evicted by their landlord.

Oregon's law.

Huh?

law was unconstitutional, they just said that Federal laws trump it. Depending on your point of view one could say that it has been overturned since the wholepoint of the law was to make it legal for certain people to smoke pot and others to grow it for them. Basically since you can still be arrested on Federal law that makes the state law more or less pointless since it doesn't provide any protection.

benefits Big Bidness, then what about
fed bankruptcy law? I think it says you
can keep a house worth only 125K yet
FL and TX allow multi-million dollar
houses.

Doesn't fed law trump FL and TX?

The can add protections that Federal law doesn't supply to consumers or give harsher penalties for certain crimes that Feds don't give or in general add to any law. Now it is up to the Federal government in these cases to protest and have them changed or revoked. What they can't do is say that something is legal if the Feds say it ain't

as long as their statutes don't directly contradict the federal laws. So we'd have to look closely at the wording of the laws themselves, and go from there. Frankly, I don't know where my sympathies lie on that particular issue: irresponsible rich twits with big houses, or even richer investment bankers who underwrite credit insurance? That's a toughy.

state laws say.

Ironically, a lot of that thinking came about as a result of efforts to reign in the southern states on civil rights.

Let's say they go "states rights" and let state medical marijuana laws bypass federal commerce laws. Well, then, what's to prevent states from passing laws to exempt themselves from food inspection regulations, pollution controls or the endangered species laws?

As Stevens observes, we really need to change the federal law, not look for state-by-state workarounds. The likelihood that this will be difficult does not alter the fact that it's the correct approach.

Unfortunately, in the short term, that turns the "grower's permit" registry into the DEA's shopping list for arrest warrants -- which was one of my primary concerns with the system all along.

There was once a time when N.CA & S.OR Didn't care much for Portland and Los Angeles running the whole state and taking everything for themselves and letting the rest of the state(s) go literally to pot(holes). They proposed to create the new state of Jefferson and a lot of people thought that might be a good idea. It was, but for the most part, it let a lot of people know that there were serious thinking people among those in less populated areas.
Perhaps it is time to create a program all across the US to let the presiding government know that we might just search to find a way to create a better country! After all, there has been many new countries created all over the world in the past half century!
I wouldn't instigate rebellion but more than one half of this nation is not in approval of this nation's home and world-wide policies. When countries don't change they usually "GET CHANGED"
Many countries are arriving at that point today and the world is speculating on just how close the US is!

I'm guessing it was Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter???

And remember that sometimes, over time, dissenting opinions can morph into majority opinions?

Dissenters were Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Conner.

This boiled down to states' rights vs. federal regulation of commerce.

federalism dance, we can just do what we want here in Oregon and forget about Shrubco back in DC.

Might be worth it to let Alabama turn into a theocracy if that's what they want if means we can be left alone....

I suppose that though we have twice voted this into law, we can kiss it goodbye as well??