• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Supreme Court has refused to hear members of California law enforcement contest of California's medical marijuana law, which means that police in California are required to uphold that law by not busting anyone who has a prescription for their joints, and they can no longer raid marijuana pharmacies, hiding behind Federal law. In a statement, the Supremes made it clear that Federal law does not trump state law in this case.

Excellent decision, and it's a good start towards dismantling the bogus war on drugs.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
The Supreme Court has refused to hear members of California law enforcement contest of California's medical marijuana law, which means that police in California are required to uphold that law by not busting anyone who has a prescription for their joints, and they can no longer raid marijuana pharmacies, hiding behind Federal law. In a statement, the Supremes made it clear that Federal law does not trump state law in this case.

Excellent decision, and it's a good start towards dismantling the bogus war on drugs.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I really wish you would start quoting a portion of the article, and a link directly to the SCOTUS decision would help also.
 
Jerry said:
I really wish you would start quoting a portion of the article, and a link directly to the SCOTUS decision would help also.
Click to expand...

Too lazy to click a link? That's what they are there for. :mrgreen:
 
Seems to me thhe issue here is if local law enforcement agencies must enforce federal law.

Of course not. Thats what federal llaw enforcement is for.

See US v Printz (1997).

So... what?
 
Goobieman said:
Seems to me thhe issue here is if local law enforcement agencies must enforce federal law.

Of course not. Thats what federal llaw enforcement is for.

See US v Printz (1997).

So... what?
Click to expand...

So what? Here's the deal. Local agencies in California attempted to claim that they had to uphold Federal law, and that is a reason they were continuing to bust people who used weed for medical purposes. Now that the SCOTUS has rendered its opinion, the locals no longer have that excuse to harass and intimidate people, as they now MUST abide by California law.

For whatever problems Bush had while he was president, he did do some things right, and his pick of Supreme Court justices was one of them.
 
danarhea said:
So what? Here's the deal. Local agencies in California attempted to claim that they had to uphold Federal law, and that is a reason they were continuing to bust people who used weed for medical purposes. Now that the SCOTUS has rendered its opinion, the locals no longer have that excuse to harass and intimidate people, as they now MUST abide by California law.
Click to expand...
Again, so what? This isnt a vindication of any sort of law or policy re: MJ, but the resolutuion of a question of intratstate power that had a pre-determined answer.

For whatever problems Bush had while he was president, he did do some things right, and his pick of Supreme Court justices was one of them.
Click to expand...
Agree there.
 
Screw dope, and dopers! Legal grass, I could care less, but all the other sh*t should stay illegal.

And I fully support the cops especially when they harass a-holes!
 
DamnYankee said:
Screw dope, and dopers! Legal grass, I could care less, but all the other sh*t should stay illegal.

And I fully support the cops especially when they harass a-holes!
Click to expand...

Would you care to elaborate on why you feel this way?
 
I don't know why this even got to a federal court. Counties in a state refusing to do what the state legislature said would be controlled by a state constitution. Battles between the state and the federal authority would be taken up in the federal court, suit brought by the state or federal entity being wronged. I think the U.S. supreme court simply found that it was not the place for the argument which it often does (was returned without any comment whatsoever).

I noticed in the article that the California supreme court also refused to hear the case. Seems to me that they should have ruled on an unresolved state issue which had no business in the U.S. Supreme court. Are they slackin'?

But I'm no lawyer. . .I could be wrong.
:2usflag:
 
DamnYankee said:
Screw dope, and dopers! Legal grass, I could care less, but all the other sh*t should stay illegal.

And I fully support the cops especially when they harass a-holes!
Click to expand...

I guess they have to be a'holes when they are dying of cancer and are looking for any way to alleviate the pain. Yea, people with cancer are real buttholes, aren't they? :roll:
 
Goobieman said:
Again, so what? This isnt a vindication of any sort of law or policy re: MJ, but the resolutuion of a question of intratstate power that had a pre-determined answer.


Agree there.
Click to expand...

This was a case where local officials were abusing their authority, and a stop got put to it. That's the so what.

On your second comment, I agree on the agreement. :mrgreen:
 
LowRevs said:
I don't know why this even got to a federal court.
Click to expand...
The issue in question was the veracity of the argument that state LEOS --must-- enforce federal law. This is a federal question, and was more or less settled in 1997.
 
Goobieman said:
The issue in question was the veracity of the argument that state LEOS --must-- enforce federal law. This is a federal question, and was more or less settled in 1997.
Click to expand...

I thought the decision in 1997 only partially settled the issue.
 
danarhea said:
This was a case where local officials were abusing their authority, and a stop got put to it. That's the so what.
Click to expand...
That's fine, so long as you dont derive some vindication of the CA MMJ law/policy from the ruling. Obviously, FEDERAL law enforcement officers can still enforce relevant federal laws, and so those acting under CA's MMJ laws may still be subject to federal prosecution.

On your second comment, I agree on the agreement. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
And I agree orn your agreement of the agreement. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
I thought the decision in 1997 only partially settled the issue.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. It did clearly say that the federal government cannot force state LEAs from enforcing federal laws, and so it seems pretty hard to argue that state LEAs must enforce federal law, absent any state provisions to that effect.
 
Goobieman said:
That's fine, so long as you dont derive some vindication of the CA MMJ law/policy from the ruling. Obviously, FEDERAL law enforcement officers can still enforce relevant federal laws, and so those acting under CA's MMJ laws may still be subject to federal prosecution.


And I agree orn your agreement of the agreement. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Actually, now that you have clarified your position, I agree with you on that. I do like the fact that Holder is not going to enforce the Federal laws in most cases, and leave it to the states, and I hope that future Attorneys General will do the same. There are many more important places that we need to sink law enforcement resources into.

And I agree on your agreement of my agreement of your agreement. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
The Supreme Court has refused to hear members of California law enforcement contest of California's medical marijuana law, which means that police in California are required to uphold that law by not busting anyone who has a prescription for their joints, and they can no longer raid marijuana pharmacies, hiding behind Federal law. In a statement, the Supremes made it clear that Federal law does not trump state law in this case.

Excellent decision, and it's a good start towards dismantling the bogus war on drugs.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
So what? Here's the deal. Local agencies in California attempted to claim that they had to uphold Federal law, and that is a reason they were continuing to bust people who used weed for medical purposes. Now that the SCOTUS has rendered its opinion, the locals no longer have that excuse to harass and intimidate people, as they now MUST abide by California law.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite right.

-It wasn't a dispute over local LEOs busting people, it was about the county offices refusing to give out medicinal marijuana cards because they believed it violated federal law.

-There was no opinion, the court merely refused to grant cert on this issue. So while it does mean that the lower court's ruling will stand, it doesn't indicate anything about what the SC thinks on the issue and has no precedential effect.

LowRevs said:
I don't know why this even got to a federal court. Counties in a state refusing to do what the state legislature said would be controlled by a state constitution. Battles between the state and the federal authority would be taken up in the federal court, suit brought by the state or federal entity being wronged. I think the U.S. supreme court simply found that it was not the place for the argument which it often does (was returned without any comment whatsoever).

I noticed in the article that the California supreme court also refused to hear the case. Seems to me that they should have ruled on an unresolved state issue which had no business in the U.S. Supreme court. Are they slackin'?

But I'm no lawyer. . .I could be wrong.
:2usflag:
Click to expand...

This actually was a case for the federal court system, because it was a question of whether a federal law preempted a state law.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, now that you have clarified your position, I agree with you on that. I do like the fact that Holder is not going to enforce the Federal laws in most cases, and leave it to the states, and I hope that future Attorneys General will do the same. There are many more important places that we need to sink law enforcement resources into.

And I agree on your agreement of my agreement of your agreement. LOL.
Click to expand...

...,and there are many more important drugs to fight a war against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom