Supreme Court outlaws medical marijuana.
June 6, 2005 9:48 AM Subscribe
I hope they all get cancer and have severe nausea that would have been alleviated by smoking pot but, because they outlawed it, they have to suffer just like they are forcing a large number of people to suffer needlessly.
posted by fenriq at 9:57 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by fenriq at 9:57 AM on June 6, 2005
I'm not surprised. You can't have a bunch of AIDS and glaucoma patients proving the effectiveness of a drug that isn't sold by the pharmaceutical industry, and making a mockery of a war on (certain) drugs hoked up by hypocrites.
posted by digaman at 9:58 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by digaman at 9:58 AM on June 6, 2005
If God didn't want cancer to be a horribly painful death, He wouldn't have created pharmaceutical companies that make drugs expensive enough to make your terminal illness an occasion for Death to race Bankruptcy to your finish line.
posted by orthogonality at 10:00 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by orthogonality at 10:00 AM on June 6, 2005
As far as I read it they're not ruling on marijuana itself, they're ruling on whether the federal govt. can trump state's rights here. They ruled that as the law stands the feds can; but they're also recommending that the law be changed, to allow states to make their own rules.
posted by carter at 10:05 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by carter at 10:05 AM on June 6, 2005
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything-- and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Scalia's puppet, my ass.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:25 AM on June 6, 2005
Scalia's puppet, my ass.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:25 AM on June 6, 2005
Although the logic by which it lies under federal jurisiction - that it's an example of interstate commerce - seems a bit, uh, weird to me.
CNN:
A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.
posted by carter at 10:26 AM on June 6, 2005
CNN:
A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.
posted by carter at 10:26 AM on June 6, 2005
Update: Justice O'Conner wrote the dissent and was joined by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Thomas.
Damned conservatives. Er, that is....
posted by orthogonality at 10:29 AM on June 6, 2005
Damned conservatives. Er, that is....
posted by orthogonality at 10:29 AM on June 6, 2005
Fuck Wickard v. Filburn!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:29 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:29 AM on June 6, 2005
Well, let's not panic here. Nothing has changed.
States can still pass medical marijuana laws, and state police enforce state laws.
When was the last time you were pulled over by the FBI? For the vast majority of medical marijuana users this is a total non-issue. The only problems that might crop up are for people who grow marijuana exclusively for medical patients rather then just to make money illegally. In some places these people even work with city governments. They'll need to be as careful in their growing and distribution as they would if they were just selling to every-day potheads.
It’s important to remember, the Supreme Court didn’t outlaw medical marijuana they simply didn’t legalize it, and that federal agents are free to enforce the federal ban, as they had been doing for the past few years anyway.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2005
States can still pass medical marijuana laws, and state police enforce state laws.
When was the last time you were pulled over by the FBI? For the vast majority of medical marijuana users this is a total non-issue. The only problems that might crop up are for people who grow marijuana exclusively for medical patients rather then just to make money illegally. In some places these people even work with city governments. They'll need to be as careful in their growing and distribution as they would if they were just selling to every-day potheads.
It’s important to remember, the Supreme Court didn’t outlaw medical marijuana they simply didn’t legalize it, and that federal agents are free to enforce the federal ban, as they had been doing for the past few years anyway.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2005
I just want to point out that this sort of hyperbole does nothing to improve the political landscape. The court didn't outlaw anything. It just said that congress didn't overstep its bounds when it outlawed something that it shouldn't have even had the rights to discuss. I don't agree with the decision, by a long shot, but this kind of shit just reminds me of screams of "judicial activism!!!1" from the right. If the judicial wing isn't allowed to make decisions, then why does it even exist?
(On preview, thanks delmoi. I'm glad I'm not alone here.)
posted by Plutor at 10:31 AM on June 6, 2005
(On preview, thanks delmoi. I'm glad I'm not alone here.)
posted by Plutor at 10:31 AM on June 6, 2005
sad. I bet Rhenquist uses it himself. And our future chief justice Scalia? He voted with the majority, as opposed to Thomas and Rhenquist. ..."The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. ...
A bad decision---if some activities are too local to justify federal intrusion, why not smoking and growing pot in your home for home use? What could be more local than that?
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on June 6, 2005
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. ...
A bad decision---if some activities are too local to justify federal intrusion, why not smoking and growing pot in your home for home use? What could be more local than that?
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on June 6, 2005
The ruling had little or nothing to do with weed.
Ruling in favor of the medical marijuana in this case would also have had the effect of undermining the Civil Rights Act and other good laws where the federal government regulates things that "affect" interstate commerce. The feds bust medical growers under the same provisions that force businesses to admit black people.
Hence Rehnquist and Thomas as dissenters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:36 AM on June 6, 2005
Ruling in favor of the medical marijuana in this case would also have had the effect of undermining the Civil Rights Act and other good laws where the federal government regulates things that "affect" interstate commerce. The feds bust medical growers under the same provisions that force businesses to admit black people.
Hence Rehnquist and Thomas as dissenters.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:36 AM on June 6, 2005
So basically, it looks to me as if the liberal Justices are trying to maintain the wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause that underpins the national labor law decisions of the early 20th century and the later New Deal decisions of the Court.
Which means, of course, that they feel that interpretation is threatened. And since the current Justices are among those most likely to understand the judicial philosophies of they appellate court judges most likely to be their successors on the Supreme Court, it means we should be worried too.
So Raich and Monson and a bunch of other terminal patients are going to be sacrificed in hopes of keeping child labor laws intact.
posted by orthogonality at 10:37 AM on June 6, 2005
Which means, of course, that they feel that interpretation is threatened. And since the current Justices are among those most likely to understand the judicial philosophies of they appellate court judges most likely to be their successors on the Supreme Court, it means we should be worried too.
So Raich and Monson and a bunch of other terminal patients are going to be sacrificed in hopes of keeping child labor laws intact.
posted by orthogonality at 10:37 AM on June 6, 2005
Update: Justice O'Conner wrote the dissent and was joined by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Thomas.
Damned strict constructionists and their damned principled, intellectual integrity...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:59 AM on June 6, 2005
Damned strict constructionists and their damned principled, intellectual integrity...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:59 AM on June 6, 2005
It's counter-intuitive but not that unexpected that the 'conservatives' are the ones who voted to legalize state medical marijuana laws. They're the ones who want limited federal government, right?
Giving the federal government the right prevent someone from growing a plant and smoking by claming that it impacts 'interstate commerce' is just completely ridiculous, but a lot of the "new deal" stuff is based on that. Right now, the fed is hardly restricted in what it can do, as long as it doesn’t violate the bill of rights.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 AM on June 6, 2005
Giving the federal government the right prevent someone from growing a plant and smoking by claming that it impacts 'interstate commerce' is just completely ridiculous, but a lot of the "new deal" stuff is based on that. Right now, the fed is hardly restricted in what it can do, as long as it doesn’t violate the bill of rights.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 AM on June 6, 2005
Intresting bit from the opposition:
If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California'?s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.
On the other hand, Souter who wrote the majority oppinion seems to think medical marijuana should be legal.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on June 6, 2005
If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California'?s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.
On the other hand, Souter who wrote the majority oppinion seems to think medical marijuana should be legal.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on June 6, 2005
So basically, it looks to me as if the liberal Justices are trying to maintain the wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause that underpins the national labor law decisions of the early 20th century and the later New Deal decisions of the Court.
Or maybe they're just trying to interpret the law correctly. Judges are supposed to interpret the law independently from their moral beliefs. Maybe that's what they're doing.
This decision, I think should prove that Scalia is totaly a partisan hack.
posted by delmoi at 11:24 AM on June 6, 2005
Or maybe they're just trying to interpret the law correctly. Judges are supposed to interpret the law independently from their moral beliefs. Maybe that's what they're doing.
This decision, I think should prove that Scalia is totaly a partisan hack.
posted by delmoi at 11:24 AM on June 6, 2005
Oh, great. Medical marijuana is illegal. The next thing you know they'll be making marijuana illegal for recreational purposes.
posted by found missing at 11:37 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by found missing at 11:37 AM on June 6, 2005
be they're just trying to interpret the law correctly
Yes, marijuana grown in California and sold only to citizens of California is the definition of interstate commerce. Very correct.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:02 PM on June 6, 2005
Yes, marijuana grown in California and sold only to citizens of California is the definition of interstate commerce. Very correct.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:02 PM on June 6, 2005
Around half of all the Medical Marijuana Clubs in California are located in San Francisco. And while states rights are being argued, it should be noted that the state doesn't seem to have much control over the situation right now. So, if the city and state don't monitor the activity, it may give the federal government more ammo to take their own initiative.
posted by gunthersghost at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by gunthersghost at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2005
Then what would you call between-state commerce?
Extra-state?
Why do interstate highways pass from one state to another?
I think you got it wrong, S@L.
posted by Balisong at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2005
Extra-state?
Why do interstate highways pass from one state to another?
I think you got it wrong, S@L.
posted by Balisong at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2005
America sucks more every day.
posted by wakko at 10:00 AM PST on June 6 [!]
Actually, 'murica sucks, then it blows. Then it sucks, then it blows. Repeat after me . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:08 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by wakko at 10:00 AM PST on June 6 [!]
Actually, 'murica sucks, then it blows. Then it sucks, then it blows. Repeat after me . . .
posted by mk1gti at 12:08 PM on June 6, 2005
*waves sarcasm flag at Balisong*
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2005
then it sucks it down deep, holds it for a few seconds and let's out a long, satisfying release of breath . . . . Aaaahhhhhhhhhhh. . . . *smiles*
posted by mk1gti at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by mk1gti at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2005
Why do interstate highways pass from one state to another?
How do you explain Hawaii havin an interstate highway?
;-)
posted by gyc at 12:13 PM on June 6, 2005
How do you explain Hawaii havin an interstate highway?
;-)
posted by gyc at 12:13 PM on June 6, 2005
America sucks more every day.
posted by dong_resin at 12:23 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by dong_resin at 12:23 PM on June 6, 2005
It's funny to see some people getting outraged by something before they understand it. It's funny to see some people confused about which side of the issue to be outraged over. And it's funny to see people try to get outraged about boogeyman only to find out the boogeyman didn't behave like he was supposed to.
posted by dios at 12:25 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by dios at 12:25 PM on June 6, 2005
Why would a decision about home growing and home use of marijuana for non-commercial purposes affect labor laws in any possible conceivable way?
posted by amberglow at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by amberglow at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2005
How do you explain Hawaii havin an interstate highway?
Actually, they have two: H1 and H2. Both are connected to the mainland by the Honolulu - San Diego tunnel.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:44 PM on June 6, 2005
Actually, they have two: H1 and H2. Both are connected to the mainland by the Honolulu - San Diego tunnel.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:44 PM on June 6, 2005
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
Er... would grow-your-own not actually decrease the overall production of weed, thereby reducing the amount of trafficing by well-financed and often violent drug gangs?
Seems like a silly argument for the US Justice Dept to make.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:48 PM on June 6, 2005
Er... would grow-your-own not actually decrease the overall production of weed, thereby reducing the amount of trafficing by well-financed and often violent drug gangs?
Seems like a silly argument for the US Justice Dept to make.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:48 PM on June 6, 2005
Well, let's not panic here. Nothing has changed.
States can still pass medical marijuana laws, and state police enforce state laws.
You sure?
Federal Agents make pot raids in California.
I imagine the Feds will start doing more of them.
posted by surplus at 12:49 PM on June 6, 2005
States can still pass medical marijuana laws, and state police enforce state laws.
You sure?
Federal Agents make pot raids in California.
I imagine the Feds will start doing more of them.
posted by surplus at 12:49 PM on June 6, 2005
Honest suggestion: if you don't know much about Commerce Clause jurisprudence... if you didn't catch Steve's reference... then you probably aren't understanding the issue in this case, and as such, you are likely to be reading this opinion incorrectly.
fff: Wickard v. Fillburn, the Homegrown Wheat case, explains that, as does this opinion.
posted by dios at 12:53 PM on June 6, 2005
fff: Wickard v. Fillburn, the Homegrown Wheat case, explains that, as does this opinion.
posted by dios at 12:53 PM on June 6, 2005
Honest admission: the interstate commerce clause has always baffled hell out of me, and I don't understand why it isn't replaced by other laws. As far as I've been able to figure out, the big-ticket items can all be handled elseways, and getting rid of it would help clear out a lot of stupid abuses of the clause.
Wickard v. Filburn doesn't make sense to me, either. Basically, it comes down to the government having the right to regulate what foods you grow in your own garden! It is possible for the government to prevent you from growing wheat for your own personal, private use... and theoretically possible for it to prevent you from growing carrots, tomatos, or parsnips. And these aren't even illegal foods!
I thought one of the goals of the founding fathers was to get government out of people's private lives.
Still, I know next to nothing about all this, so I'm not going to try to get overly critical of it all. It just seems bizarre to me.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:05 PM on June 6, 2005
Wickard v. Filburn doesn't make sense to me, either. Basically, it comes down to the government having the right to regulate what foods you grow in your own garden! It is possible for the government to prevent you from growing wheat for your own personal, private use... and theoretically possible for it to prevent you from growing carrots, tomatos, or parsnips. And these aren't even illegal foods!
I thought one of the goals of the founding fathers was to get government out of people's private lives.
Still, I know next to nothing about all this, so I'm not going to try to get overly critical of it all. It just seems bizarre to me.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:05 PM on June 6, 2005
Why would a decision about home growing and home use of marijuana for non-commercial purposes affect labor laws in any possible conceivable way?
Because the Federal Government can't make laws willy-nilly. It is bounded by The Constitution. In order to outlaw controlled substances (and step in on a marijuana-growing co-operative), the judiciary must read parts of the Constitution (in this case, the Commerce Clause) very broadly. It's difficult to find a consistent legal and Constitutional philosophy that would endorse The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (upheld in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel) while finding for Raich in this specific case.
In other words, all sorts of shit is "Constitutional" if you read the Commerce Cause broadly enough-- if you scale back the Government's power vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause to prevent prohibition of a marijuana co-op, you've got to scale it back to prevent prohibition of unpalatable labor standards.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:14 PM on June 6, 2005
Because the Federal Government can't make laws willy-nilly. It is bounded by The Constitution. In order to outlaw controlled substances (and step in on a marijuana-growing co-operative), the judiciary must read parts of the Constitution (in this case, the Commerce Clause) very broadly. It's difficult to find a consistent legal and Constitutional philosophy that would endorse The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (upheld in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel) while finding for Raich in this specific case.
In other words, all sorts of shit is "Constitutional" if you read the Commerce Cause broadly enough-- if you scale back the Government's power vis-a-vis the Commerce Clause to prevent prohibition of a marijuana co-op, you've got to scale it back to prevent prohibition of unpalatable labor standards.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:14 PM on June 6, 2005
amberglow writes "Why would a decision about home growing and home use of marijuana for non-commercial purposes affect labor laws in any possible conceivable way?"
Because (an overbroad) interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is the basis both for the Court's decision in this case and its previous decisions, going back a century, that allowed Federal regulation of lots of other things, including labor rights, civil rights, and business regulation.
posted by orthogonality at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2005
Because (an overbroad) interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution is the basis both for the Court's decision in this case and its previous decisions, going back a century, that allowed Federal regulation of lots of other things, including labor rights, civil rights, and business regulation.
posted by orthogonality at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2005
I thought one of the goals of the founding fathers was to get government out of people's private lives.
It was. And it was FDR's goal to do just the opposite. He won.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2005
It was. And it was FDR's goal to do just the opposite. He won.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2005
five fresh fish writes "Er... would grow-your-own not actually decrease the overall production of weed, thereby reducing the amount of trafficing by well-financed and often violent drug gangs?"
For the lawyers, that's not the point: in this game you just have to prove any affect to get Federal supremacy. Previous Courts have upheld bizarrely tangential "affects" on interstate commerce, often to keep liberal do-gooding constitutional.
posted by orthogonality at 1:18 PM on June 6, 2005
For the lawyers, that's not the point: in this game you just have to prove any affect to get Federal supremacy. Previous Courts have upheld bizarrely tangential "affects" on interstate commerce, often to keep liberal do-gooding constitutional.
posted by orthogonality at 1:18 PM on June 6, 2005
Long live Scalia! Because we all know that forcing MS patients to die choking on their own vomit is teh hotness these days.
That sort of judicial obscenity makes me wish that the Justices in favor of the decision be stricken with MS or have to undergo extensive chemo, if for no other reason than karmic payback.
posted by clevershark at 1:18 PM on June 6, 2005
That sort of judicial obscenity makes me wish that the Justices in favor of the decision be stricken with MS or have to undergo extensive chemo, if for no other reason than karmic payback.
posted by clevershark at 1:18 PM on June 6, 2005
I know there are a few "crops" that can't be grown for "personal" use.
Peanuts because they are a copyrighted invention.
Wheat? and tobacco because..? It would take revenue away from subsidised farmers?
If Marijuana gets *legalised* you would still probably not be able to grow it in your basement or backyard.
How will R.J.Reynolds make any money selling you a pack of 20 with filters?
Or more importantly, how will the states-feds collect the tax issued to it?
The only way for it to be freed from the govt.-corporate grasp is to *decriminalise* it.
Then it will be like tomatos, carrots, roses, aloe-vera or any other household plant.
(Thanks for the flag S@L, sometimes I'm as dense as a brick of Afganistani Blonde hash)
posted by Balisong at 1:19 PM on June 6, 2005
Peanuts because they are a copyrighted invention.
Wheat? and tobacco because..? It would take revenue away from subsidised farmers?
If Marijuana gets *legalised* you would still probably not be able to grow it in your basement or backyard.
How will R.J.Reynolds make any money selling you a pack of 20 with filters?
Or more importantly, how will the states-feds collect the tax issued to it?
The only way for it to be freed from the govt.-corporate grasp is to *decriminalise* it.
Then it will be like tomatos, carrots, roses, aloe-vera or any other household plant.
(Thanks for the flag S@L, sometimes I'm as dense as a brick of Afganistani Blonde hash)
posted by Balisong at 1:19 PM on June 6, 2005
But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.
hmm... evidently the DoJ is full of people too fucking stupid to understand that the reason marijuana enriches "well-financed, often violent drug gangs" is that marijuana is illegal in the first place.
posted by clevershark at 1:21 PM on June 6, 2005
hmm... evidently the DoJ is full of people too fucking stupid to understand that the reason marijuana enriches "well-financed, often violent drug gangs" is that marijuana is illegal in the first place.
posted by clevershark at 1:21 PM on June 6, 2005
Y'know, clevershark, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is just as culpable as Scalia for "forcing MS patients to die choking on their own vomit."
posted by Kwantsar at 1:24 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Kwantsar at 1:24 PM on June 6, 2005
FFF, think of it this way:
There is X amount of widgets in the country. They are all made in Utah. You live in Idaho. You start making your own widgets. That means you don't buy your widgets from Utah. The guy in Utah now has extra widgets because you didn't buy from him. An excess of supply will reduce price. That's basic economics. So the producer will either cut production to keep the price stable, or increase production to sell more of the cheaper widgets. This will require new purchasers as well. Either way, your making yours in your home effected the overall interstate market for widgets. And since you are effecting interstate commerce, the feds feel like they have the power to regulate you.
This same theory is what allowed the federal government to prevent Ollie's Barbeque from serving only whites. So, if you want the federal government to stay out of this, then be prepared to give up on a lot of the New Deal and Civil Rights laws.
posted by dios at 1:26 PM on June 6, 2005
There is X amount of widgets in the country. They are all made in Utah. You live in Idaho. You start making your own widgets. That means you don't buy your widgets from Utah. The guy in Utah now has extra widgets because you didn't buy from him. An excess of supply will reduce price. That's basic economics. So the producer will either cut production to keep the price stable, or increase production to sell more of the cheaper widgets. This will require new purchasers as well. Either way, your making yours in your home effected the overall interstate market for widgets. And since you are effecting interstate commerce, the feds feel like they have the power to regulate you.
This same theory is what allowed the federal government to prevent Ollie's Barbeque from serving only whites. So, if you want the federal government to stay out of this, then be prepared to give up on a lot of the New Deal and Civil Rights laws.
posted by dios at 1:26 PM on June 6, 2005
five fresh fish writes "Honest admission: the interstate commerce clause has always baffled hell out of me, and I don't understand why it isn't replaced by other laws."
Because it's in the Constitution, so you'd need a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. But the Commerce Clause is integral to very very much of 20th century law (and Congress's power to legislate) so everyone who wanted to ensure their continued profit (lawyers, lobbyists, corporations, and politicians) would fight such an amendment tooth an nail.
For the companies, getting rid of Federal supremacy would mean having to lobby fifty separate state legislatures, not to mention the instability and loss of profit that would come form the uncertainty of any national business venture when any of fifty governments could throw a monkey-wrench into it. (Look up the spreader bills used to force the railroads to pay bribes.) For the Federal lawyers (both government and private) and the Federal lobbyists and politicians, the Commerce Clause and Federal supremacy is where the majority of the money is.
No one is going to kill this cash cow.
posted by orthogonality at 1:26 PM on June 6, 2005
Because it's in the Constitution, so you'd need a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. But the Commerce Clause is integral to very very much of 20th century law (and Congress's power to legislate) so everyone who wanted to ensure their continued profit (lawyers, lobbyists, corporations, and politicians) would fight such an amendment tooth an nail.
For the companies, getting rid of Federal supremacy would mean having to lobby fifty separate state legislatures, not to mention the instability and loss of profit that would come form the uncertainty of any national business venture when any of fifty governments could throw a monkey-wrench into it. (Look up the spreader bills used to force the railroads to pay bribes.) For the Federal lawyers (both government and private) and the Federal lobbyists and politicians, the Commerce Clause and Federal supremacy is where the majority of the money is.
No one is going to kill this cash cow.
posted by orthogonality at 1:26 PM on June 6, 2005
I don't think it has anything to do with lobbying.
This has less to do with the existence of a commerce clause then it has to do with the judicial interpretation of it that has allowed it to be an open-ended tool of the federal government to do whatever they want. Once you give the federal government that authority, then they will use it.
The reason why it won't be reigned in is because Commerce Clause jurisprudence (along with privacy jurisprudence) has been the mechanism by which all the famous "liberal" policies of the 20th century were authorized. Labor laws, civil right laws, New Deal legislation, gun control, etc. The Commerce clause has been the tool of the federal government to kill federalism and states' rights in the name of the greater good.
Judges who restrict the commerce clause to a reasonable reading of it are the same judges that will be filibustered for "bring outside the mainstream." You can imagine the torrent of bad faith and the "You must support kiddie porn/racisim/etc. if you think the Commerce clause is bad!" One need not look further then this website for such rhetoric chastising such judges who radically believed the commerce clause shouldn't be that expansive. That is the result when "strict constructionism" (or originalism or textualism) became a partisan code word for political devolution.
posted by dios at 1:45 PM on June 6, 2005
This has less to do with the existence of a commerce clause then it has to do with the judicial interpretation of it that has allowed it to be an open-ended tool of the federal government to do whatever they want. Once you give the federal government that authority, then they will use it.
The reason why it won't be reigned in is because Commerce Clause jurisprudence (along with privacy jurisprudence) has been the mechanism by which all the famous "liberal" policies of the 20th century were authorized. Labor laws, civil right laws, New Deal legislation, gun control, etc. The Commerce clause has been the tool of the federal government to kill federalism and states' rights in the name of the greater good.
Judges who restrict the commerce clause to a reasonable reading of it are the same judges that will be filibustered for "bring outside the mainstream." You can imagine the torrent of bad faith and the "You must support kiddie porn/racisim/etc. if you think the Commerce clause is bad!" One need not look further then this website for such rhetoric chastising such judges who radically believed the commerce clause shouldn't be that expansive. That is the result when "strict constructionism" (or originalism or textualism) became a partisan code word for political devolution.
posted by dios at 1:45 PM on June 6, 2005
Kwantsar writes "Y'know, clevershark, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is just as culpable as Scalia for 'forcing MS patients to die choking on their own vomit.'"
That's pretty damn sad. Then again my experience of America has shown me that it's pretty easy and risk-free to obtain marijuana through illegal means if one is white and wealthy.
posted by clevershark at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2005
That's pretty damn sad. Then again my experience of America has shown me that it's pretty easy and risk-free to obtain marijuana through illegal means if one is white and wealthy.
posted by clevershark at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2005
dios writes "There is X amount of widgets in the country..."
Following that particular line of reasoning though, you're telling us that SCOTUS is invoking the clause to prevent street gangs from losing turf?
I find it a little difficult to twist my head around that particular idea. In fact I find it downright funny.
posted by clevershark at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005
Following that particular line of reasoning though, you're telling us that SCOTUS is invoking the clause to prevent street gangs from losing turf?
I find it a little difficult to twist my head around that particular idea. In fact I find it downright funny.
posted by clevershark at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005
I belive it is the 14th amendmant, not the commerse clause that gives us equal rights.
posted by delmoi at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by delmoi at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005
And it was FDR's goal to do just the opposite. He won.
posted by Kwantsar
Didn't FDR get Prohibition repealed?
posted by surplus at 1:56 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Kwantsar
Didn't FDR get Prohibition repealed?
posted by surplus at 1:56 PM on June 6, 2005
Y'know, clevershark, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is just as culpable as Scalia for "forcing MS patients to die choking on their own vomit."
perhaps the distinction is that Ginsburg isn't a "strict constructionist," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in light of cases like Bush v. Gore and this one...
Scalia is trying to have his cake and eat it too -- kudos to Thomas for at least being consistent in his application of so-called strict constructionism (in this case, that is... where was his strict constructionism in Bush v. Gore?).
let's say the federal gov't passed a law making gay marriage legal, but then utah passed a state law making it illegal in utah. do you suppose scalia would be siding with the interpretation of the commerce clause that says that it's the fed's business what they do in utah? NOT BLOODY LIKELY.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:57 PM on June 6, 2005
perhaps the distinction is that Ginsburg isn't a "strict constructionist," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean in light of cases like Bush v. Gore and this one...
Scalia is trying to have his cake and eat it too -- kudos to Thomas for at least being consistent in his application of so-called strict constructionism (in this case, that is... where was his strict constructionism in Bush v. Gore?).
let's say the federal gov't passed a law making gay marriage legal, but then utah passed a state law making it illegal in utah. do you suppose scalia would be siding with the interpretation of the commerce clause that says that it's the fed's business what they do in utah? NOT BLOODY LIKELY.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:57 PM on June 6, 2005
I belive it is the 14th amendmant, not the commerse clause that gives us equal rights.
posted by delmoi at 1:49 PM PST on June 6
You would think that. But then you wouldn't be right in this context. Go read the opinions. The grounds which permitted the federal government to prevent places like Ollie's Barbeque from serving only white people was the Commerce Clause.
See, the Constitution only applies to the federal and state governments. So what prevents me, as an individual, from serving only white people? That is individual action; there is no requisite state action to trigger the fourteenth amendment. So go back and read the opinions. The Supreme Court argued that private discrimination effects interstate commerce, so the federal government had the right to outlaw it.
if one is white and wealthy.
posted by clevershark at 1:46 PM PST on June 6
Sweet! Racism and classism as a justification for the legalization of pot! Now I've seen everything!
posted by dios at 2:00 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by delmoi at 1:49 PM PST on June 6
You would think that. But then you wouldn't be right in this context. Go read the opinions. The grounds which permitted the federal government to prevent places like Ollie's Barbeque from serving only white people was the Commerce Clause.
See, the Constitution only applies to the federal and state governments. So what prevents me, as an individual, from serving only white people? That is individual action; there is no requisite state action to trigger the fourteenth amendment. So go back and read the opinions. The Supreme Court argued that private discrimination effects interstate commerce, so the federal government had the right to outlaw it.
if one is white and wealthy.
posted by clevershark at 1:46 PM PST on June 6
Sweet! Racism and classism as a justification for the legalization of pot! Now I've seen everything!
posted by dios at 2:00 PM on June 6, 2005
Basically, it comes down to the government having the right to regulate what foods you grow in your own garden!
I thought one of the goals of the founding fathers was to get government out of people's private lives.
Welcome to the club.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:10 PM on June 6, 2005
I thought one of the goals of the founding fathers was to get government out of people's private lives.
Welcome to the club.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:10 PM on June 6, 2005
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.
Goatfucker.
Wickard v. Filburn doesn't make sense to me, either.
It doesn't make sense to most people, IMO. It's still a bitch to work around.
There are a wide number of organizations hoping to mobilize around this decision. It's a good time to make some noise, if you're the letter/email-writing type (and if you're still idealistic enough to believe that your politicians are your representatives and that they care about your letters/email).
Drug Policy Action Network
Marijuana Policy Project
Raich Day of Action
Urge your member of Congress to vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment
NORML
posted by mrgrimm at 2:31 PM on June 6, 2005
Goatfucker.
Wickard v. Filburn doesn't make sense to me, either.
It doesn't make sense to most people, IMO. It's still a bitch to work around.
There are a wide number of organizations hoping to mobilize around this decision. It's a good time to make some noise, if you're the letter/email-writing type (and if you're still idealistic enough to believe that your politicians are your representatives and that they care about your letters/email).
Drug Policy Action Network
Marijuana Policy Project
Raich Day of Action
Urge your member of Congress to vote for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment
NORML
posted by mrgrimm at 2:31 PM on June 6, 2005
Following that particular line of reasoning though, you're telling us that SCOTUS is invoking the clause to prevent street gangs from losing turf?
Basicaly, yes if you read the article. Since there is a broad insterstate market for marijuana the federal government has a right to regulate it. That's the resoning behind the decision.
posted by delmoi at 2:34 PM on June 6, 2005
Basicaly, yes if you read the article. Since there is a broad insterstate market for marijuana the federal government has a right to regulate it. That's the resoning behind the decision.
posted by delmoi at 2:34 PM on June 6, 2005
You would think that. But then you wouldn't be right in this context. Go read the opinions. The grounds which permitted the federal government to prevent places like Ollie's Barbeque from serving only white people was the Commerce Clause.
Hmm, oh well. I'm certain a new amendment could be passed protecting civil liberties specifically in the current political climate, although it might be hard to figure out how to word it so that affirmative action were still allowed.
And anyway, why not limit the CC to regulate things that involve the transfer of money or economic things. This girl wasn’t growing tons of 'extra' stuff like the Wheat guy.
posted by delmoi at 2:52 PM on June 6, 2005
Hmm, oh well. I'm certain a new amendment could be passed protecting civil liberties specifically in the current political climate, although it might be hard to figure out how to word it so that affirmative action were still allowed.
And anyway, why not limit the CC to regulate things that involve the transfer of money or economic things. This girl wasn’t growing tons of 'extra' stuff like the Wheat guy.
posted by delmoi at 2:52 PM on June 6, 2005
Personally, I'm torn, since I'm both pro-gateway drugs and pro-forcing MS patients to die choking on their own vomit.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 2:56 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by iron chef morimoto at 2:56 PM on June 6, 2005
I've heard the Commerce Clause arguments pro and con.
It seems to me the US would do well to rewrite its laws from scratch, this time with an eye toward separation of Government, Church, and Corporation.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:46 PM on June 6, 2005
It seems to me the US would do well to rewrite its laws from scratch, this time with an eye toward separation of Government, Church, and Corporation.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:46 PM on June 6, 2005
Fuck Wickard v. Fillburn, indeed.
When the fuck are statists of all stripes going to wake the fuck up and realize that giving the government unprecedented power to do something they like is, eventually, and inevitably, going to result in the government using that power to do something stupid?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:49 PM on June 6, 2005
When the fuck are statists of all stripes going to wake the fuck up and realize that giving the government unprecedented power to do something they like is, eventually, and inevitably, going to result in the government using that power to do something stupid?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:49 PM on June 6, 2005
Come to think of it, probably every country could do with a rewriting of its constitution from scratch, every two hundred years or so...
Canada certainly benefited by the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the early 1980s. It could be revisited every century or two, bring it up-to-date with current social movements.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on June 6, 2005
Canada certainly benefited by the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the early 1980s. It could be revisited every century or two, bring it up-to-date with current social movements.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:50 PM on June 6, 2005
C'mon Iron Chef, it couldn't be that hard to draft a law that forces MS patients to choke on their own vomit, without touching the marijuana angle.
And FFF, I agree..
We need to re-write our laws from the top down, starting with a new constitution that protects privacy and acknowledges personal resposibility to all things personal.
Except I can't trust the Bush administration to come up with that kind of document.
There was a local referendum to allow a "review panel" to review old laws and remove them from the books if they were obsolete. I voted against it, It passed.
I don't know if I can trust a "Review panel" to do the right thing.
These changes need to be from the Constitution down, with that first. And subsequent legislation argued by professional argumentors. Otherwise we'll end up with a worse clusterfupp than we already have.
Are there any bipartisan professional argumentors?
Probably not in my town.
posted by Balisong at 4:58 PM on June 6, 2005
And FFF, I agree..
We need to re-write our laws from the top down, starting with a new constitution that protects privacy and acknowledges personal resposibility to all things personal.
Except I can't trust the Bush administration to come up with that kind of document.
There was a local referendum to allow a "review panel" to review old laws and remove them from the books if they were obsolete. I voted against it, It passed.
I don't know if I can trust a "Review panel" to do the right thing.
These changes need to be from the Constitution down, with that first. And subsequent legislation argued by professional argumentors. Otherwise we'll end up with a worse clusterfupp than we already have.
Are there any bipartisan professional argumentors?
Probably not in my town.
posted by Balisong at 4:58 PM on June 6, 2005
Well, there goes getting a prescription for the only insomnia medication to ever work for me...
posted by schyler523 at 5:11 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by schyler523 at 5:11 PM on June 6, 2005
Basicaly, yes if you read the article. Since there is a broad insterstate market for marijuana the federal government has a right to regulate it. That's the resoning behind the decision.
Safeway sells tomatoes. But every summer millions of scofflaws grow these interstate-commerce affecting fruit. Why, they might not even buy tomatoes at the supermarket when their plants are bearing!
Looking forward to the new anti-tomato laws. Finally, something will be done about those who try to dodge, evade, and eschew our wonderful corporate produce.
posted by telstar at 5:20 PM on June 6, 2005
Safeway sells tomatoes. But every summer millions of scofflaws grow these interstate-commerce affecting fruit. Why, they might not even buy tomatoes at the supermarket when their plants are bearing!
Looking forward to the new anti-tomato laws. Finally, something will be done about those who try to dodge, evade, and eschew our wonderful corporate produce.
posted by telstar at 5:20 PM on June 6, 2005
dios writes "Sweet! Racism and classism as a justification for the legalization of pot! Now I've seen everything!"
As usual you're seeing what you want to see, dios. You're not even worth setting straight about what I did say.
posted by clevershark at 5:41 PM on June 6, 2005
As usual you're seeing what you want to see, dios. You're not even worth setting straight about what I did say.
posted by clevershark at 5:41 PM on June 6, 2005
Every consumer is sacred.. Every consumer is great..
And for every consumer that's wasted..
The federal interstate commerce commision gets quite irate.
posted by Balisong at 5:49 PM on June 6, 2005
And for every consumer that's wasted..
The federal interstate commerce commision gets quite irate.
posted by Balisong at 5:49 PM on June 6, 2005
How do you explain Hawaii havin an interstate highway?
Actually, they have two: H1 and H2. Both are connected to the mainland by the Honolulu - San Diego tunnel.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:44 PM EST
I just know some poor, befuddled 10 year old is going to add this "factoid" to his report on tunnels because he "found it on the internet."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:47 PM on June 6, 2005
Actually, they have two: H1 and H2. Both are connected to the mainland by the Honolulu - San Diego tunnel.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:44 PM EST
I just know some poor, befuddled 10 year old is going to add this "factoid" to his report on tunnels because he "found it on the internet."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:47 PM on June 6, 2005
Balisong (or MontyPythonsong): Hilarious.
What surprises me is how little attention is being given to the "spin" being put out by the media linked to in the FPP, and for that matter, notwithstanding this thread's erudite musings, which show how (relatively) easy it is to encapsulate what the ruling really means [ "that SCOTUS is invoking the clause to prevent street gangs from losing turf?" :-)], how the AP and AFP headlines completely misconstrue the scope of the ruling.
Hmm, I guess surprised (about the media) is too strong - resigned disappointment...cursory derision...something along those lines.
posted by birdsquared at 7:52 PM on June 6, 2005
What surprises me is how little attention is being given to the "spin" being put out by the media linked to in the FPP, and for that matter, notwithstanding this thread's erudite musings, which show how (relatively) easy it is to encapsulate what the ruling really means [ "that SCOTUS is invoking the clause to prevent street gangs from losing turf?" :-)], how the AP and AFP headlines completely misconstrue the scope of the ruling.
Hmm, I guess surprised (about the media) is too strong - resigned disappointment...cursory derision...something along those lines.
posted by birdsquared at 7:52 PM on June 6, 2005
All praise Thomas and Rehnquist. How does it feel to be on the same side of that argument.
posted by Carbolic at 10:15 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Carbolic at 10:15 PM on June 6, 2005
Coastal dwellers! How many more reasons do we need to secede from Dumbfuckistan?
posted by squirrel at 10:21 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by squirrel at 10:21 PM on June 6, 2005
Hmmm, while I agree that a broad interpretation of the commerce clause has been a good thing, it doesn't cover everything. It was properly found not to cover the school-exclusion zones, for instance.
In this case, since the effect on interstate commerece is in point of fact nonexistant, this is a pretty weak invocation -- leaving aside the question of whether the commerce clause should even cover illegal commerce.
So, given the human cost, I'm not too happy with this.
Also... as far as I'm concerned, the commerce clause is just a tool. While some positions are matters of principle, states' rights vs. centralism is not, for me -- and I think many others. I will embrace either Federalism or centralism depending on what end is served.
In the PAST, centralism has been a good thing -- striking down discriminatory state laws and so forth.
This is no longer true, and probably won't be for some time. We can look for national laws to be regressive, not progressive as in the past. National laws striking down state emissions standards, gay rights laws, etc.
So, maybe it'd be prudent for progressives to consider embracing states' rights...
posted by herostratus at 10:25 PM on June 6, 2005
In this case, since the effect on interstate commerece is in point of fact nonexistant, this is a pretty weak invocation -- leaving aside the question of whether the commerce clause should even cover illegal commerce.
So, given the human cost, I'm not too happy with this.
Also... as far as I'm concerned, the commerce clause is just a tool. While some positions are matters of principle, states' rights vs. centralism is not, for me -- and I think many others. I will embrace either Federalism or centralism depending on what end is served.
In the PAST, centralism has been a good thing -- striking down discriminatory state laws and so forth.
This is no longer true, and probably won't be for some time. We can look for national laws to be regressive, not progressive as in the past. National laws striking down state emissions standards, gay rights laws, etc.
So, maybe it'd be prudent for progressives to consider embracing states' rights...
posted by herostratus at 10:25 PM on June 6, 2005
Interesting points to ponder, herostratus. Imagine a new libertarian left! H.S. Thompson checked-out too soon!
posted by squirrel at 10:32 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by squirrel at 10:32 PM on June 6, 2005
It seems to me the US would do well to rewrite its laws from scratch, this time with an eye toward separation of Government, Church, and Corporation.
Hear, hear. We need a Constitution 2.0.
But this will not happen because: 1) We can't trust partisan assholes to do it right. 2) There is a lot of money and political muscle keeping things as they are. 3) The American people will not insist on it - most people are relatively content so they don't give a shit 4) Good things like this happen only in the fairy tale universe inside my head.
I'm looking to emigrate (seriously) when my kid hits 18. Til then, I'm stuck here.
posted by beth at 11:13 PM on June 6, 2005
Hear, hear. We need a Constitution 2.0.
But this will not happen because: 1) We can't trust partisan assholes to do it right. 2) There is a lot of money and political muscle keeping things as they are. 3) The American people will not insist on it - most people are relatively content so they don't give a shit 4) Good things like this happen only in the fairy tale universe inside my head.
I'm looking to emigrate (seriously) when my kid hits 18. Til then, I'm stuck here.
posted by beth at 11:13 PM on June 6, 2005
centralism has been a good thing -- striking down discriminatory state laws and so forth
My POV is that centralism should protect liberties, not limit them.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:41 PM on June 6, 2005
My POV is that centralism should protect liberties, not limit them.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:41 PM on June 6, 2005
I'm looking to emigrate (seriously) when my kid hits 18. Til then, I'm stuck here.
My wife and I have had this discussion. Problem is, by then, who would take us? Hell, who would take us NOW?
posted by davelog at 5:45 AM on June 7, 2005
My wife and I have had this discussion. Problem is, by then, who would take us? Hell, who would take us NOW?
posted by davelog at 5:45 AM on June 7, 2005
can anyone explain to me how Nevada allowing prostitution (and not having the feds break it up) is different from this?
posted by gren at 6:12 AM on June 7, 2005
posted by gren at 6:12 AM on June 7, 2005
can anyone explain to me how Nevada allowing prostitution (and not having the feds break it up) is different from this?
Because there is no federal law barring prostitution?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:58 AM on June 7, 2005
Because there is no federal law barring prostitution?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:58 AM on June 7, 2005
ZenMasterThis writes "Actually, they have two: H1 and H2. Both are connected to the mainland by the Honolulu - San Diego tunnel."
Now there would be a cool civil engineering project to be involved with.
telstar writes "Looking forward to the new anti-tomato laws. Finally, something will be done about those who try to dodge, evade, and eschew our wonderful corporate produce."
You're looking at it wrong. It's not that the Feds must regulate everything that effects interstate commerce only that they may if they wish. In other words what Kwantsar said.
posted by Mitheral at 11:35 AM on June 7, 2005
Now there would be a cool civil engineering project to be involved with.
telstar writes "Looking forward to the new anti-tomato laws. Finally, something will be done about those who try to dodge, evade, and eschew our wonderful corporate produce."
You're looking at it wrong. It's not that the Feds must regulate everything that effects interstate commerce only that they may if they wish. In other words what Kwantsar said.
posted by Mitheral at 11:35 AM on June 7, 2005
I think it has something to do with criminal behavior that moves between states, gren. Also, them conservatives loves them some good hired tail. They have no trouble just saying no to the devil weed.
posted by squirrel at 4:20 PM on June 7, 2005
posted by squirrel at 4:20 PM on June 7, 2005
Wow am I ever late to this thread.
One comment: let's criminalize the drinking and possession of alcohol again so a wider variety of people can feel what it's like to get a criminal record for indulging in a mostly harmless substance.
posted by dreamsign at 5:55 PM on June 7, 2005
One comment: let's criminalize the drinking and possession of alcohol again so a wider variety of people can feel what it's like to get a criminal record for indulging in a mostly harmless substance.
posted by dreamsign at 5:55 PM on June 7, 2005
Balisong: I know there are a few "crops" that can't be grown for "personal" use. Peanuts because they are a copyrighted invention.Wheat? and tobacco because..? It would take revenue away from subsidised farmers?
Not true. You can buy the seeds for peanuts and tobacco from Burpee they are such a common garden crop. There are trademarked varieties of wheat from the biopharm companies, but there are heritage and organic seeds available for the garden grower.
posted by dejah420 at 6:58 PM on June 7, 2005
Not true. You can buy the seeds for peanuts and tobacco from Burpee they are such a common garden crop. There are trademarked varieties of wheat from the biopharm companies, but there are heritage and organic seeds available for the garden grower.
posted by dejah420 at 6:58 PM on June 7, 2005
If you outlaw marijuana, only outlaws will have marijuana.... no, wait, I said it wrong...how many outlaws does it take...no, wait...
The stuff is illegal in the first place because of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Bill & Harry "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men" Anslinger. I'm not going into the Hearst & Du Pont & Mellon conspiracy because it's so clouded (and probably bullshit).
The cannabisnews.com link sez alcohol companies lobby to keep the stuff illegal. I think it's illegal for another reason, as illustrated by my overlong, boring and probably apocryphal story:
These four gorillas were moved into the same cage as part of an experiment. When the gorillas were first moved in, they would lower bananas into the center of the cage. When the gorillas went after the food, they were all hosed down with a high-pressure water hose. Even if only one went after the food, all received the same treatment. Soon the gorillas did not go after the bananas when they were lowered into the cage.
The experimenters then replaced one of the gorillas.
When the bananas were lowered into the cage, the new gorilla, started toward the free meal. The other three gorillas knew what would happen, so they jumped all over the new gorilla. So the new gorilla learned not to go after the food lowered into the cage, and to jump any other gorilla that did the same.
The experimenters continued to replace each gorilla one by one. Each time the new gorilla went for the food the others jumped him. Soon the experimenters had replaced all of the four original gorillas. The high-pressure water hose had not been used since the first four gorillas were together. But every time a new gorilla went for the food lowered into the cage, the others jumped on him. The experimenters were able to go several generations away from the original four gorillas, but the behavior did not change. None of the gorillas knew the original reason why they shouldn’t go for the food, but they knew what to do if any one did.
If the gorillas could talk they could probably invent plenty of rationale for why another gorilla shouldn't go for the food, no matter how hungry he is.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:23 AM on June 8, 2005
The stuff is illegal in the first place because of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Bill & Harry "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men" Anslinger. I'm not going into the Hearst & Du Pont & Mellon conspiracy because it's so clouded (and probably bullshit).
The cannabisnews.com link sez alcohol companies lobby to keep the stuff illegal. I think it's illegal for another reason, as illustrated by my overlong, boring and probably apocryphal story:
These four gorillas were moved into the same cage as part of an experiment. When the gorillas were first moved in, they would lower bananas into the center of the cage. When the gorillas went after the food, they were all hosed down with a high-pressure water hose. Even if only one went after the food, all received the same treatment. Soon the gorillas did not go after the bananas when they were lowered into the cage.
The experimenters then replaced one of the gorillas.
When the bananas were lowered into the cage, the new gorilla, started toward the free meal. The other three gorillas knew what would happen, so they jumped all over the new gorilla. So the new gorilla learned not to go after the food lowered into the cage, and to jump any other gorilla that did the same.
The experimenters continued to replace each gorilla one by one. Each time the new gorilla went for the food the others jumped him. Soon the experimenters had replaced all of the four original gorillas. The high-pressure water hose had not been used since the first four gorillas were together. But every time a new gorilla went for the food lowered into the cage, the others jumped on him. The experimenters were able to go several generations away from the original four gorillas, but the behavior did not change. None of the gorillas knew the original reason why they shouldn’t go for the food, but they knew what to do if any one did.
If the gorillas could talk they could probably invent plenty of rationale for why another gorilla shouldn't go for the food, no matter how hungry he is.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:23 AM on June 8, 2005
Well, some people have found a medical use, and it's not those damn hippies.
posted by Balisong at 9:14 AM on June 9, 2005
posted by Balisong at 9:14 AM on June 9, 2005
« Older Wal-mart: Sith Lord of unbridaled capitalism | Book deal shmook deal Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
For those people who use marijuana for medical purposes, what other recourse do they have?
posted by PossumCowboy at 9:56 AM on June 6, 2005