home

Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana Decision

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:44:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Digby weighs in.

The plaintiffs in the case say they will continue to smoke pot.

The decision seems counter-intuitive to me from a practical standpoint. Under federal law, possession of marijuana for personal use is a misdemeanor. Growing even one plant is a felony. So, what the decision does is encourage pot smokers to engage in a business transaction by buying marijuana in the marketplace, so as not to get tagged with a cultivation felony. Had the court ruled the other way, the marketplace would be diminished for these users as they could grow their own in the privacy of their own homes. Go figure.

[Note, I'm purposely avoiding hyper-technical legal issues like whether buying marijuana constitutes distribution or aiding and abetting distribution. The federal law doesn't refer to buyers or sellers - it prohibits distribution which means "to deliver." Technically, by buying marijuana, one could be said to be participating in a delivery or aiding and abetting it, and even though I disagree, that's not the point here.]

< Russell Crowe Denies Assaulting Hotel Clerk With Telephone | Medical Marijuana : Take Action Now >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana Decision | 8 comments (8 topical)
    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    mfox: Are you suggesting that pregnant women use pot? You say a "not harmful amount" -- by what scientific means did you determine a "safe" amount for the fetus? This is nuts.

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    I have been perscribed Morphine by my doctor. I just don't understand why Mary jane cannot be perscribed. We go crazy over BJs but not War crimes. I guess I answered my own question.

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    Gee Ed. I would think that after what you've done for your country, you should be able to smoke any damn thing you like. Sadly, I see this as a huge boon for the Pro-Marijuana folks - coming at the expense of very sick people. Pictures of sick folks being carted away by the Feds in one truck - juxtaposed with innocent detainees in a different one might actually wake some people up. FYI, "from what I understand", a very small amount of pot (i.e. a not harmful amount) completely relieves morning sickness in pregnant women. An equally small dose all but eliminates post-surgical sickness and pain from CO2. God bless America - we sure need you now. Signed - A Harvard Educated Federal Criminal. P.S. If you are convicted of a Federal Crime - could I choose to use the incarceration money to pay off my student loan - perhaps wearing an ankle bracelet instead? Or at least get an "incarceration extension"?

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#3)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    mfox, that just doesn't sound pointless and destructive enough. Think Old Testament god here; that's the inspiration for our justice system.

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#5)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    "Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." Clarence Thomas A nugget from the otherwise expected med/mari decision by the Supremes today. More: http://leftindependent.blogspot.com/ Including the PDF of the Med/Mari Supreme Court decision of 6-6-2005.

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    graphicus, pregnant women can have a glass of wine a day and be fine. now, obviously, OBVIOUSLY, i don't want pregnant women abusing anything, or children, or anyone vulnerable. but all those folks also spend their days, to cite one examply, like most americans, breathing ungodly amounts of carbon monoxide air pollution from fossil fuel burning which, i'm sorry to say, will never be exposed for the real danger it poses (since automobiles are seen as too indispensible to our economy and culture, and industry owns the government essentially), but we're going ballistic, wasting time and effort to criminalize a plant people have been using safely for thousands of years. THAT is crazy.

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    btw, i'll be heading down to the local pot store in a little while. f*ck the feds, the "liberals" on the supreme court, we live in far too interesting times.

    Re: Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana D (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    Blagh's right behind ya...if you hear from him again in a half hour or so, Blagh promises to be mellower...book it... Back soon! "Oh, Canada..." :-)

    Reaction to Supreme Court Medical Marijuana Decision | 8 comments (8 topical)