![]() |
|
![]()
March 28, 2010
Forces Of Drug Prohibition Won Big
The forces of drug prohibition won a big case that will reverberate in the fight against the health care bill. They won it in 2005 in the Supreme Court. Read it and weep. Lawsuits from 14 states challenging the constitutionality of the new national healthcare law face an uphill battle, largely due to a far-reaching Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.Which just goes to show you that Liberty is indivisible. You start denying it to people you don't like and pretty soon it will be denied to you. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so funny. Here is a nice little ditty. First they came for the crack users; but I said nothing. I was not a crack user.Well I have been screaming my lungs out about the Drug War for decades. And my conservative friends have been putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "La La La I can't hear you." Can you hear me now? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 03.28.10 at 03:15 AM
Comments
bob, You are correct. The case is Wickard vs Filburn. M. Simon · March 28, 2010 2:35 PM Post a comment |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational No Biorobots For Japan The Thorium Solution Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera Voter Fraud? This war of attrition is driving me bananas! Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry? Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression? Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I believe the 2005 ruling actually refers back to a 1930s case in which the court ruled that under the commerce clause the Feds could regulate a wheat farmer whose total crop was used on his own farm and not sold.
That case was all about commerce and where the lines are. Griswold v. Connecticut might serve as a counter precedent if some judge will see drug use a a personal (our bodies ourselves) issue. After all, Griswold only addressed whether married people could practice birth control. It eventually became a woman's right to an abortion.
By the way, if Griswold can't be used for drug rights (even medicinal? our bodies?) it probably will be used to legalize polygamy and prostitution.