Congratulations to AcaCandy on her 100,000th post!
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
JoinTour
Login
 
Tag Cloud
acer black screen blue screen boot bsod computer connection crash css dell driver drivers email error ethernet excel firefox firefox 3 game hard drive internet internet explorer itunes laptop linux malware monitor network networking nvidia outlook outlook 2003 outlook 2007 outlook express partition printer problem router slow software sound trojan usb video virus vista windows windows vista windows xp wireless
Civilized Debate
Search
Search in:
 
Advanced Search
Tech Support Guy Forums > Community > Civilized Debate >
Supremes Say No to Medical Reefer


HELLO AND WELCOME! Before you can post your question, you'll have to register -- it's completely free! Click here to join today! We highly recommend that you print a copy of our Guide for New Members. Enjoy!

 
Thread Tools
linskyjack's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 22,421 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
07-Jun-2005, 08:48 AM #1
Supremes Say No to Medical Reefer
Well, well, well, God forbid that someone should smoke hemp for pain control. I mean, each smoker and supplier is a potential drug pusher who could very well destroy the very fabric of our drug-free society! Can you imagine---for all realistic purposes we have lost the war on drugs, and the Supremes are worried that allowing medical use of marijuana is somehow going to make things worse?
coderitr's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 3,080 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
07-Jun-2005, 09:22 AM #2
The case was not strictly about medical marijuana but whether or not a state could allow something that federal law forbids. In my opinion, the court got this one wrong not because the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes should be allowed but because state law should override federal law as the framers of the constitution intended.
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
07-Jun-2005, 09:51 AM #3
This thread may not get much play because of all that was said about it here:
http://forums.techguy.org/showthread.php?p=2669859
XL Guru's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 2,708 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: nr. Cambridge, England.
Experience: there's no substitute for it, apparently
07-Jun-2005, 10:35 AM #4
Quote:
the Supremes are worried that allowing medical use of marijuana is somehow going to make things worse?
Cripes, are they still going? I thought it was only those modern-day musician types who were anti-substances.
LANMaster's Avatar
Community Moderator with 43,471 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
07-Jun-2005, 11:13 AM #5
Lame. Medicinal MJ would be so helpful in some cases.

Too bad there's all those wackos who want it sold over the counter.

If it weren't for such a huge push to classify MJ as if it were alcohol, then allowing prescripts would be no problem, I'm sure.
__________________
I’d rather elect McCain and hope he’s telling the truth than elect Obama and hope to God he’s lying.

Better an imperfect Republican than a perfect socialist.

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. -- Josef Stalin

Stalin was correct. Now who wants to undermine patriotism, morality, and spirituality?

No Way, No How, NObama
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
07-Jun-2005, 02:53 PM #6
I also find interesting that Linsky cleverly obfuscates this as the "conservative" court making this absurd decision. But it was a 6-3 decision with all the liberals in the majority) and the 3 dissenters (O'Connor, Rhenquist and Thomas) all conservatives. Kennedy has always been a "floater" more often going with the 4 conservatives that includes Scalia--those two went with the majority. So we have 4 liberals, one conservative, and one moderate in the majority and 3 conservatives in the dissent.

Looks like maybe that liberals judges aren't all their cracked up to be, hey Linsky?
__________________
Weapon of Mass Instruction!

Do you like counting dead bodies? If so, you'll LOVE this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ity-chart.html. On the other hand, if you prefer honoring heroes, please visit this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...those-who.html
bassetman's Avatar
Computer Specs
Moderator with 46,987 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great White North (WI)
Experience: Getting somewhere I hope
07-Jun-2005, 03:05 PM #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
I also find interesting that Linsky cleverly obfuscates this as the "conservative" court making this absurd decision. But it was a 6-3 decision with all the liberals in the majority) and the 3 dissenters (O'Connor, Rhenquist and Thomas) all conservatives. Kennedy has always been a "floater" more often going with the 4 conservatives that includes Scalia--those two went with the majority. So we have 4 liberals, one conservative, and one moderate in the majority and 3 conservatives in the dissent.

Looks like maybe that liberals judges aren't all their cracked up to be, hey Linsky?
You keep ignoring that it is a GOP president that is enforcing this law!
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
07-Jun-2005, 03:07 PM #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassetman
You keep ignoring that it is a GOP president that is enforcing this law!
The president does not run the Supreme Court!

And how long has prohibition been around? So you are saying that this 'blame' can be placed on all those Presidents?
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
07-Jun-2005, 03:10 PM #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassetman
You keep ignoring that it is a GOP president that is enforcing this law!
So? It is his responsiblity to enforce all laws passed by Congress. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret them. Do you want him to decide which laws he enforces and which ones he doesn't? I don't get your point?
LANMaster's Avatar
Community Moderator with 43,471 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
07-Jun-2005, 03:12 PM #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulder
I also find interesting that Linsky cleverly obfuscates this as the "conservative" court making this absurd decision. But it was a 6-3 decision with all the liberals in the majority) and the 3 dissenters (O'Connor, Rhenquist and Thomas) all conservatives. Kennedy has always been a "floater" more often going with the 4 conservatives that includes Scalia--those two went with the majority. So we have 4 liberals, one conservative, and one moderate in the majority and 3 conservatives in the dissent.

Looks like maybe that liberals judges aren't all their cracked up to be, hey Linsky?
Attached Thumbnails
supremes-say-no-medical-reefer-av-applause.gif  
bassetman's Avatar
Computer Specs
Moderator with 46,987 posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great White North (WI)
Experience: Getting somewhere I hope
07-Jun-2005, 03:12 PM #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciberblade
The president does not run the Supreme Court!

And how long has prohibition been around? So you are saying that this 'blame' can be placed on all those Presidents?
The SC didn't go out and decide to pick this case to rule on, the Admin brought the case to them (I think).
LANMaster's Avatar
Community Moderator with 43,471 posts.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central USA
Experience: Need no stinking badges
07-Jun-2005, 03:12 PM #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassetman
You keep ignoring that it is a GOP president that is enforcing this law!
Mulderator's Avatar
Distinguished Member with 49,761 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
07-Jun-2005, 03:14 PM #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ciberblade
The president does not run the Supreme Court!

And how long has prohibition been around? So you are saying that this 'blame' can be placed on all those Presidents?
His problem is he continually confuses the role of the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches. The Executive Branch is charged with executing all laws passed by Congress whether they like them or not. As I have said before, I expect the Executive Branch to take an aggressive, advocational role in pushing an agenda they believe in--to push the limit if you will. I expect the Legislature to do the same, but to be much more neutral. I expect the Judicial Branch to leave agendas out completely and simply focus on the Constitution.

Bassetman thinks Bush should function like a SC judge--in fact all liberals do--balancing the rights of citizens and the Constitution and this IS NOT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN the function of the Executive Branch. If it was the Clinton Admin, he'd be pi$$ed if they weren't pushing a liberal agenda--that's what he would expect them to do!
__________________
Weapon of Mass Instruction!

Do you like counting dead bodies? If so, you'll LOVE this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ity-chart.html. On the other hand, if you prefer honoring heroes, please visit this thread: http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...those-who.html
AKA Arizona's Avatar
Computer Specs
Distinguished Member with 2,912 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Mississippi South of Mason Dixion
Experience: Computer & Web Design Engineer
07-Jun-2005, 03:15 PM #14
I realy don't see the big issue here, medical MJ would be no different then say oxycodone, Cocaine, LSD, and heroin. They all have legitimate medicinal values and are used every day in the medical community.
Ciberblade's Avatar
Computer Specs
Community Moderator with 15,703 posts.
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Heart of the Bluegrass Ky
Experience: Mostly Harmless
07-Jun-2005, 03:15 PM #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassetman
The SC didn't go out and decide to pick this case to rule on, the Admin brought the case to them (I think).
You are arguing something you don't even know about? I have news for you...the SC's docket is full for years to come with people wanting the government to take more rights away or to legislate their way of life, or to argue an opinion -- and it's public record...you can look up what the schedule is
__________________
82,268
*AD-Aware*AIDA32*AVG-7*Filemon*Hijack This*PortMon*Process Explorer*TSG Forums menu*

Far righty-tighty Wingnut Libertarian ( ) - annoyingly free thinking with no tendency to agree on anything with anyone. - BF

If you wish...you can now come to church with me! A church that is NOT normal...a church for people who don't like 'church'
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY! Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question -- for free! Our site is run completely by volunteers who help people like you solve computer problems. See our Welcome Guide to get started.



Thread Tools


You Are Using:
Server ID
Advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16 AM.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008 TechGuy, Inc. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin, Copyright © 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
Powered by Cermak Technologies, Inc.