Court Refuses to Hear Medical Marijuana Challenges

[Dos Equis]

Court Refuses to Hear Medical Marijuana Challenges

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:40 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court won't hear another challenge to California's decade-old law permitting marijuana use for medical purposes.

The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

Supporters say marijuana helps chronically ill patients relieve pain. Critics say the drug has no medical benefit and all use should be illegal.

San Diego supervisors had sued to overturn the state law after it was approved by voters in 1996, but lower courts have ruled against them.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

A federal appeals court ruled that ID card laws "do not pose a significant impediment" to the federal Controlled Substances Act because that law is designed to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

The cases are County of San Bernardino v. California, 08-897 and County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 08-887.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/us_scotus_medical_marijuana/2009/05/18/215425.html

[Deicide]

Court Refuses to Hear Medical Marijuana Challenges

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:40 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court won't hear another challenge to California's decade-old law permitting marijuana use for medical purposes.

The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

Supporters say marijuana helps chronically ill patients relieve pain. Critics say the drug has no medical benefit and all use should be illegal.

San Diego supervisors had sued to overturn the state law after it was approved by voters in 1996, but lower courts have ruled against them.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

A federal appeals court ruled that ID card laws "do not pose a significant impediment" to the federal Controlled Substances Act because that law is designed to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

The cases are County of San Bernardino v. California, 08-897 and County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 08-887.
 
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/us_scotus_medical_marijuana/2009/05/18/215425.html

The 10th amendment makes very clear that the federal government has NO authority whatsoever concerning this issue, not that it cares much about the Constitution. Never mind the sheer immorality of trying to regulate people's personal habits.

[bears]

The 10th amendment makes very clear that the federal government has NO authority whatsoever concerning this issue, not that it cares much about the Constitution. Never mind the sheer immorality of trying to regulate people's personal habits.

we still have yet to elect a president with enough balls to go against the grain of the average voter who has been inundated their entire lives into thinking that marijuana is in the same class as cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth.  its amazing how many people still believe that because of what they see on tv.

[240 is Back]

i saw two shithead teenage girls in traffic this past weekend, smoking weed at a red light in the car right next to me.  And sure enough, the light goes green, they veer right into my lane.  if I had a coke in my hand, I probably would have hit their car with it.

idiots.

I know, everyone here somehow sees increased reaction time and better focus after toking... but there are so many unfocused morons out there... legalization = bad idea.