View Single Post
Old June 6, 2005, 02:11 PM   #16
dolanp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2005
Location: North Texas
Posts: 371
In a nutshell they basically said that marijuana sales are a lucrative market (wait, how can that be if it's illegal?? oh yeah...), that they wouldn't be able to tell the source of the marijuana (and that matters how...?), and that it is 'too close' to the market in that personal marijuana could be injected into the illegal market without much effort (uh oh, guns anyone?)... so through a bunch of legalese and saying 'well this part is similar to this other decision, which was similar to this other decision, etc', they have decided non-commercial intrastate marijuana is now affecting interstate commerce. The commerce, mind you, which is illegal. This is illegal because it could affect illegal interstate commerce.... just think about that.

As Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent, they have basically given the government carte-blance to regulate anything.

Sad thing is most people won't care about this at all. They will read the article briefly and say 'Yeah well of course marijuana is illegal! Duh did these California hippies think the law doesn't apply to them??' because the average sheeple doesn't know anything about the Constitution except 'I plead the 5th, where's my phone call!'
dolanp is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02589 seconds with 8 queries