Yes, it was the right decision – I just wish they’d start making the right kind of wrong decisions. . .
On a lighter note, it’s good to see this thread again. Nothing quite like waking up to Brian’s slightly insane, barely comprehensible, obviously paranoid ramblings (and I mean that in the most affectionate way possible, Bri).
– Jer
P.S. – Good call, minty, though I think it was a pretty safe bet.
Can’t argue with the decision. It’s a shame the potheads decided to run that lame horse in the Big Race. I should know, by the way.
Thursday evening I had a type of surgery that strikes mortal fear into the hearts of men, and for good, painful reasons. Late Saturday night I put the bottle of Percocet up on the medicine cabinet shelf and decided to stick exclusively to the hydroponic. Why? Reefer was working better.
While the legality of the issue is no longer in dispute, I really have to question the motivation of those who oppose studying the medicinal uses of marijuana, because I for one now know that it works.
I don’t think there’s any question that pot is an excellent pain- and nausea-killer for a lot of people, Sofa. It’s really too bad that the major proponents of medical marijuana are the same people who subscribe to High Times. It just kills the credibility to have Wavey Gravy wannabes as your spokespersons. Christ, if you’re gonna distribute marijuana as medicine, then at least get some people who look like professional pharmacists to stand behind the counter instead of a bunch of Deadheads. If you look and act like a pothead commune, you’re just begging to get busted like a pothead commune.
My best guess is that local and federal authorities will generally continue to look the other way when somebody who’s legitimately sick fires up a joint or grows a few plants in the closet. But if they’re going to draw attention to themselves through public displays of righteous martyrdom, they’re going down, just like the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative.
In the drug war, discretion is definitely the better part of valor.
Well, minty green, I hereby acknowledge your superior Supreme Court vote predicting abilities! Although, do I get partial credit for the way it broke 5-3 on whether the medical necessity defense might be usable by the appropriate parties?
Partial credit got me through law school, jshore. 
That’s rather strange, seeing as how the appellants in Griswold v Conneticut successfully asserted their patients’ right to privacy. If all the sellers of cannibus are in jail, dontcha think that might affect people’s ability to buy cannibus a bit?
And can you explain how the federal government possibly has the right to regulate intrastate commerce? If this is the “correct” decision, does the tenth amendment mean anything at all?
Basically, if an activity substantially affects interstate commerce, the Interstate Commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate it. It’s been that way since the mid-1930s, even though some people steadfastly refuse to face reality. The Rhenquist-O’Connor-Scalia-Kennedy-Thomas majority on the current Court has backed off a bit on what it takes to substantially affect commerce, but not very much. There’s no question whatsoever that Congress has the power to regulate food and drugs, even if they never cross state lines. Those cases were decided even before the New Deal, if I recall my constitutional history correctly.
Doesn’t mean a darn thing in this context, since controlled substances substantially affect interstate commerce. Because the power to regulate interstate commerce is expressly delegated to Congress, the Tenth Amendment simply doesn’t restrict Congress’ power to regulate controlled substances. The majority technically left the commerce clause question open in its opinion yesterday–take a look at footnote 7, which was obviously placed there in response to Justice Stevens’ half-hearted “what about states’ rights?” argument. But it’s a complete loser of a legal position, as witnessed by the fact that our idealistic potheads and their lawyers never even raised the issue.
If the Court had been deciding on the substantive due process rights of individuals to use medicinal marijuana, Griswold might have given the OCBC the right to assert the medical necessity defense on behalf of its patients. But this was not a due process case like Griswold. Yesterday’s decision simply answered the question whether there was a medical necessity defense to federal drug distribution charges. Answer: No, according to the 5-person majority, who decided that the medical necessity defense does not exist for any defendant, much less the co-op. The concurrence shot down the distributors too, but would have left the defense as an open question for medical marijuana patients.