Oregon Medical Marijuana & the Supreme Court

Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard arguments on medical marijuana laws like Oregon's.


  • (Show?)

    Old conservative constitutional interpretation: "States rights."

    New conservative constititional interpretation: "Red states rights."

  • (Show?)

    I'm surprised this topic is getting such a yawn.

  • Nader (unverified)

    Alright here's my $0.02 worth (in bullet format, 'cuz I'm lazy):

    -Marijuana should be legal, because it is probably safer (or at least as safe as) alcohol -There is very little legitimate research about medical marijuana -What little research there is seems to show that mary jane has little or no medicinal benefits -Terminally ill patients, or those for whom no other conventional treatment is effective, should be allowed to smoke pot if it gives them comfort they can't get from conventional meds -There is an inherent conflict between the Federal government criminalizing the possession of marijuana, and a the State of Oregon (or California, or what have you) saying that possession is ok. -Thus to reconcile the two, I think that the Feds cannot force States to prosecute or enforce laws against medical pot users -But the fact that Oregon refuses to prosecute, doesn't mean that the Feds can't -And the Feds can make certain funds to the State contingent upon eforcement of controlled substance possession laws, even against card-carrying medicinal pot users

    That was probably more like $0.27 worth.

  • Tenskwatawa (unverified)

    Thank you, Mr. Nader. It seemed to me more like a 64-million-dollar answer.

    Over in another ("Objectivity") post, the discussion perhaps touches on the inference in this that I believe or trust that I can recognize the 'real' Mr. Nader by the words and cogency of the comment above. Inasmuch as, (which is little), that discussion seeks into the nature of objectivity, and its believability, and the frame of mind required to make these things, or make these things not, occur to one.

    A lot of conjecture in it. And, it's all good. But it somehow loses me of its purpose, in being too truculent or academic or differentiated, maybe. In the end, in some situations, I can read words written and know I know who wrote them and, associatedly, know what of them is true and reliable and what of them is otherwise. Yet not be able to say how I know, completely. This time: I can tell.

    So I think. And it is so satisfying to see 'Nader' visiting the blog 'hood and fully inspiring that he has heart and time to engage it. So esteemed. So estimable.

    On the subject here: I agree the legal status of marijuana should be changed, but I don't call it 'legalized.' I call it 'ignored,' like dandelions. To my knowledge there is no law that makes me to or stops me from growing dandelions on my property and eating them or smoking them or whatever. Just repeal the laws about 'weed' so it is like other weeds.

    Restraints on private property occupations, really, are the purview of adjoining and adjacent property 'holders.' Qualifying that within "natural things that grow" on property; some unnatural things might better be government's purview.

    And, in practice, property owners can grow tomatoes to be spaghetti sauce (or projectiles at bad actors), can grow pot to be medicative (or a trade stake), can grow kids to be hate-filled racists (or pride-filled neighborists). What one does on private property should not be regulated, it is easy to say -- but hardly true. What can't be decided by judicial fiat can then be left for case-by-case decision, and for the matter of growing crops it seems the adjoining neighbors could best make a case first.

    Other versions of property rights and legalities, (non-Magna Carta), can be found through here, such as Aristotle's and the Iroquois Nation's (here).

    Facing an ever-increasing loss of justice diffused in the ever-extending labyrinth of laws, at some point -- which maybe internet communications does herald -- the U.S. Code deserves to be re-written beginning with a second Constitution. I propose a Consti2tional Convention.

    With some mischief in that. We should require a re-written U.S. Consti2tion, in order to see ourselves inevitably fail to agree on it, in order to prepare (by failure) to think of dissolving this country into five countries -- each with its own sovereign legality and open travel and commerce between them -- demarked mainly in watersheds and climatological regions. Which determines what naturally grows on the land.

  • (Show?)

    I support the legalization and taxing of marijuana as a recreational drug in the same class that we currently reserve for alcohol and tobacco, although I believe the health risks to be much lower for pot than for either of the above mentioned legal drugs.

    I am not, however a huge fan of calling a recreational drug a medicine without adequate research (as mentioned by "Nader"), regardless of whether the act of calling a pig a duck benefits my bias.

    So, while the Supremes will rule based on the Federal/State tug of war, the issues lie elsewhere for me.

open discussion

connect with blueoregon