Gay marriage IS controlled by the states.  Abortion is protected under the right to privacy.  Medical pot has nothing to do with interstate commerce.  The "imperial" (whatever you mean by that) federal government IS "over" the states.  The Constitution is very clear that federal law trumps state law unless state law exceeds federal standards, as with minimum wage in Vermont and several other states.  Sounds like you want to undo the results of the Civil War.


im actually confused with your responce Don Carlos.  Are you saying that you support the decision the Court made? 

im actually confused with your responce Don Carlos.  Are you saying that you support the decision the Court made? 


No, I don't support the court's decision.  In fact, I think pot should be at least decriminalized, if not made legal.  My point, which I appologise for not making clearer, is that when conservatives approve the fed gov't expanding its powers (like the (anti) Patriot Act), they are all for an activist court willing to do their bidding, or the bidding or to spare whatever big business's ox could get gored.  When it comesv to the rights of the people to do things like grow medicinal herbs, or find ways to "cheat" big business (like stopping people from growing their owm "drug of choice", well, in those cases, individual liberty be damned.  There is good reason to prevent people from distilling home-made hooch.  At the wrong temperature, that stuff can kill you.  Home-made fermented booze is legal, and should be since it comes out as either wine/beer/ale or as vinigar.  But the Booze lobby is dead set against pot for any use - medical or recreational, because it eats into theit profits.

My other point was that the issues I responded to, were already controlled by the states.

"Hmm.. time and effort that could be dedicated to fighting crime or terrorism is being used to throw sick people into the slammer? I find this just a bit odd..."

Heard that one on the news today, and I like it.

This ruling basically voids the laws of ten states that allow marijuana for medical purposes.

That's basically completely and utterly fudgeing stupid from start to finish.  Only some kind of microcranial moron could possibly think they're in any way benefiting mankind by coming up with this sort of bullsheesh.

What the Supreme Court said is that federal law trumps state laws. It didn't outlaw the medicinal use of marijuana, federal law does, and the federal law can and should be changed.

That's basically completely and utterly fudging stupid from start to finish.  Only some kind of microcranial moron could possibly think they're in any way benefiting mankind by coming up with this sort of balony.


blaim the United States Supreme Court then Phil

That's basically completely and utterly fudging stupid from start to finish.  Only some kind of microcranial moron could possibly think they're in any way benefiting mankind by coming up with this sort of balony.


You're talking about Scalia, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens right?

I was joking with my GP this morning about needing a prescription for Mary Jane. He told me that soon he will be able to give prescriptions for an inhaler that gives all of the benefits of weed, without all of the harmfull side effects. But he also said that it will be expensive as h*ll, and most private, and government prescription plans will not cover it.

So did he basically say that it will be better to just go to the corner and pick up a dime bag, rather than depend on the government to supply the needy with the medication they need? At a price they can afford? Because even though the canadian government is growing their own medicinal weed in a cave in Saskatchewan, it's next to impossible to actually get a prescription for it.

I don't need it BTW. I hate weed, but I would never think of telling someone that actually feels better with it that they can't have it because the government deems it dangerous. But will allow the corner store to deliver cigarettes and beer to my front door.