Sep 212015
 September 21, 2015

One of my old college professors is infatuated with United States Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. That professor has published several books dealing with female Supreme Court Justices, and recently published one specifically about the legal opinions that Justice Sotomayor has issued during her career. That college professor was my favorite when I was in college, and I still seek her advice to this day. As a result, I have always been a Sotomayor fan a little bit.

So it was very disheartening to watch a video during which Justice Sotomayor made a snarky comment about marijuana legalization. The video was recorded during a speaking session Justice Sotomayor participated in at Amherst. Justice Sotomayor was giving a very passionate speech about the need to restore faith in government. She talked about her involvement in the civil rights movement, and the need for college students to vote.

She then started to talk about passion, and the need for college students to be passionate about something. She then says that they can be passionate about marijuana legalization, but…then says ‘eh’ and shrugs her shoulders as to suggest that the issue isn’t that important. To be fair she did go on to say that there have been people that have been passionate about it, and have ‘accomplished things’ but in a way that completely understates the achievements of cannabis activists. Below is the video I’m talking about, which was put on YouTube by the amazing activist Tom Angell:

In order to restore faith in government, and in order to engage college students and to get them to be passionate about social justice, I can’t think of a better way to do all of those things than to fight for marijuana reform. Justice Sotomayor said in her speech that people need to believe that their government is doing the right thing. How is prohibiting cannabis a good thing? Especially considering the racial injustices that marijuana prohibition perpetuates. I hope that someone is able to pull Justice Sotomayor to the side and explain to her that she is too smart to think of marijuana reform as a ho-hum issue. It’s far from that. Marijuana prohibition has ruined many, many lives, and specifically has prevented many people from going to college because they had their financial aid revoked due to a marijuana charge. Marijuana legalization is a serious issue, which Justice Sotomayor should be well aware of.

Comments

comments

About Johnny Green

Dissenting opinions are welcome, insults and personal attacks are discouraged and hate speech will not be tolerated. Spammers and people trying to buy or sell cannabis or any drugs will be banned. Read our comment policy and FAQ for more information

  81 Responses to “Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Makes Snarky Comment About Marijuana Legalization”

  1.  

    I am disappointed she has that view. I do hope legalization on the national level doesn’t go all the way to the Supreme Court!

    •  

      Unfortunately it already is, multiple states have sued Colorado and the Supreme Court just might take the case. Possession will likely remain legal but the regulations for the recreational cannabis industry could be ruled unconstitutional. Hopefully it won’t come to that and Congress will either pass a rider in the spending bill to forbid the DOJ from spending money to enforce federal law against dispensaries (we were within 16 votes last July,) or they could deschedule it entirely within a few years. I’m hoping for the latter.

      •  

        I did not realize that. I am spoiled living in Oregon. I hope it is legal in all states by 2020.

        •  

          I think it’s going to be 2017. Reason why… 16 states with recreational/medical issues on the ballot. Majority of America supports it. 40 states have legalized it in some form… 27 states medical, 4 of those 27 are recreational, the rest have legalized cbd extract and or industrial hemp. Only 9 states have refused to update their laws. Additionally, DC legalized recreational. Even if you don’t count the cbd/industrial hemp changes, it’s over 50%. I think the turning point will be California legalizing recreational use. The Supreme Court will likely never take on the lawsuits against colorado.

        •  

          Additionally, the minute satevix completes it’s fast track to schedule 3 as a medication, the federal government ranking cannabis as a schedule 1 drug is over. As satevix is nothing more than hash oil spray.

          •  

            Marinol (dronabinol) is synthetic 100% THC. It is schedule 3 already. Epidiolex is currently in FDA approved fast track trials. It is concentrated plant-derived CBD.

            So yes, by logic, the very fact that THC and CBD are both considered less harmful somehow than the whole plant combined should mean that at max cannabis could be schedule 3 which is still unacceptable considering it doesn’t match the qualifications to be in any of the schedules.

            Also of annoyance is with concentrates becoming more popular, prohibitionists are making scare campaigns about how “dangerous” the high THC might be…while Marinol 100% THC is considered safe (even though it has a list of terrible side effects, takes weeks to work, and doesn’t work as well compared to whole plant).

          •  

            Patient using Dronabinol, here (off-label by Rheumatologist for residual neuralgia post-surgical thoracotomy). The initial script had the pharmacy “dumping” everything they had left in their fridge (pretty much was only being “ordered” for patients who wouldn’t live long enough to refill their scripts). So, got some that wasn’t manufactured using sesame oil carrier? and it resulted in “pinpoint” GI pain. However, every script since has been filled with sealed 50 count bottles of 10mg. with no GI problems to speak of. Other than the PITA of having to take the med an hour earlier than the Aspirin/Codeine/Gabapentin (so plasma levels don’t overlap to the degree I forget to take those meds on time as the Dronabinol is “peaking late” and I don’t think about taking the other meds on schedule (not good as when the Dronabinol finally wears off I pay for it). Other than having to keep it in fridge and the ~1.45hr. wait for the Dronabinol to begin to do its work, I find it to be not only very effective for damping signals from the “frayed wiring” in the L chest, it also has proven very effective on “munged up joint” pain (why I have a Rheumatologist – every “latest and greatest” NSAID over the past 30 yrs – finally went back to Aspirin & Codeine).
            As an old connoisseur of Sativas (two hit shiat or none at all), I find the Dronabinol to be far less “intrusive”. Other than slight enhancement of colors & a dry mouth there have been no “side effects”, there is little “cognitive involvement” (typing “under influence” currently).
            Only reason my doc is “gutsy” enough to “experiment” with the Dronabinol is that he is retiring soon :( So my source for the “bottled in bond” will soon disappear.

            The most important fact, that “activists” should continually be “reminding/informing” others of, regarding all FDA/DEA approved synthetic/semi-synthetic “Cannabinoids”, is that the patient information inserts do NOT forbid the operation of motor vehicles, or other equipment, “UNDER THE INFLUENCE”, they only caution the patient not to do so until they understand and can accommodate for the effects of the medication (good enough for the FDA/DEA but not employers performing random screening?). Have been “tooling around” “under the influence” for months – sans souci
            The point being that the entire issue isn’t about the “effects” of the “THC” in the plant material Versus the synthetic analogue of the “primary intoxicant” in Cannabis, Delta Nine THC (Dronabinol/Marinol) at all. It has everything to do, however, with who/what entity controls the “source” of the THC.

            The heck with some SCJ, Obama should go out on a massive troll, exercising his Administrative Prerogative, under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, holding aloft a copy of Nixon’s own Shafer Commission Report (recommended Fed Decrim) and ordering his “drug warrior”, AG, Lynch, to begin the process of “descheduling”, altogether (“Nixon just forgot to get to it, right?”)
            The only “enforcement” should be exercised by the ATF & Martha Stewart (what cultivar of this non-toxic, attractive, reseeding ornamental serves best as both a border plant and as a palliative for menstrual pain).

          •  

            I could formulate you capsules that come on faster.

            Its called having a brain. Theres better than Sesame oil.

            The doses wouldn’t be as accurate though, and you would get a lot of unidentified stuff from what ever plants I used.

            And, yes..there is a double standard. Impairment shouldn’t be based on drug testing…it should be based on impairment. Yes, sober people should get DUII if they can’t pass impairment testing while those of us loaded up passing impairment testing should walk free.

          •  

            I don’t see how Marinol has different side effects from pot…probably less most likely

            Whats dangerous about the high is common dumbasses getting $ and the consumer sitting around not working.

          •  

            Its hash oil spray which is standardized and up to USP standards.

            Thats more than most “cannabis medicine” people could hope to offer…not that they need it to be standardized or up to USP standards; just that they aren’t usually skilled enough to do it if they wanted.

        •  

          You’re not spoiled. You live in a normal civilized society. Those of us living under alcohol supremacism are getting kicked around by fascist pigs like Cuomo and Christie,

          •  

            We have a lot of entitled addicts..

            Erhem, they believe they deserve free and cheap drugs they didn’t produce.

            I use the word “addict” because they can’t accept their own lack of skills and inability to afford the habit…an impoverished person can self supply already with our 4 plant rule..I did

          •  

            And what if a landlord won’t give poor tenants permission to grow their 4 plants? What if someone is disabled? People don’t have to be able to manufacture their own alcohol to have access to affordable alcohol, why should it be any different with far safer weed?

      •  

        Yes…and were any of those cases successful or just wind blowing?

        The CSA is unconstitutional..there is no threat that legalization is going to get ruled unconstitutional. If prohibition made it into court, it wouldn’t stand..that is why it never gets a full hearing.

        •  

          I agree with you that the CSA should be unconstitutional, however, SCOTUS has ruled that the CSA is constitutional, in cases such as Gonzales v. Raich. The court has changed since then, so maybe we’ll get lucky if they do decide to hear those cases. This isn’t quite the same issue as in Gonzales, but I’m not as confident as you in what SCOTUS will do.

      •  

        Nebraska and Oklahoma Co-petitioners Nebraska and Oklahoma have sued Colorado. Oregon and Washington have filed amicus briefs urging the SCOTUS to follow the law and dismiss the suit. The petitioners have only a microscopic chance of in getting the SCOTUS to hear the case and the proverbial snowball in Hades chance whatever of prevailing.

        Last year Congress did adopt a budget with a rider forbidding the Department of Justice to interfere with a State’s medicinal cannabis laws and it was also in this year’s budget.
        —————————
        quoting from
        https://www.washingtonpost.COM/local/dc-politics/house-budget-bill-would-outlaw-marijuana-sales-in-dc-for-two-years/2015/06/11/ffd763ae-1051-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html
        :

        Last week, the House approved a bipartisan measure to protect state
        medical-marijuana programs. For only the second time, it instructed the
        federal Drug Enforcement Administration not to target state dispensaries
        or medical-marijuana manufacturing or distribution facilities. The
        House also told the DEA to leave alone states that allow sales of
        cannabinoids or CBD oils derived from cannabis plants.
        /snip/

        •  

          Unfortunately the DEA has completely ignored that bill. I believe the sponsors are attempting to address that, but almost nothing in the government moves at real world speed.

          “A spokesperson for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) told the Los Angeles Times that a bipartisan amendment passed by Congress last year prohibiting DOJ from spending any money to undermine state medicalmarijuana laws doesn’t prevent it from prosecuting people for medical marijuana or seizing their property.”

    •  

      National Legislation to mandate criminal prosecutions for outlawing what the Constitution was originally drafted on is the best way to reach and educate the Supreme Court.

      •  

        Stop acting like you care about hemp…the Constitution wasn’t printed on marijuana

        And that is irrelevant..the CSA is unconstitutional.

  2.  

    haha look at everyone’s expression. Like “forget this chic, what the heck?!”

  3.  

    Disheartening, indeed. :(

  4.  

    This amplifies the problem with our federal government, and the elitism it conveys. If nothing else cannabis provides palliative care for those who suffer a number of maladies and that includes a good many seniors and hospice patients. Of all the candidates Bernie Sanders is the most likely to end the prohibition, and he’s promised to use a grassroots campaign if elected to force people like Sotomayor to accept real change in both law and practice.

    This is purposeful ignorance and a pathological lack of empathy. She and many others do not serve the people of the US. Maybe we need to impose term limits on all federal judges as well as Congress.

    •  

      Bernie Sanders has been in federal office for 24 years and has never supported taking cannabis out of Schedule 1. If you think he will end prohibition, you are projecting values onto him that his actions over the past 24 years simply do not support.

      Not that I endorse him or will vote for him, but Rand Paul is head and shoulders above Bernie Sanders when it comes to their actions in federal office to end cannabis prohibition. Rand Paul wrote legislation with Barney Frank to remove cannabis entirely from the CSA Schedules. Bernie Sanders would not even co-sign, let alone co-sponsor, that legislation.

      Bernie Sanders is no different than Obama or Clinton on cannabis, and that is a real shame. Nothing from his 24 years in federal office indicates Bernie Sanders will end prohibition.

      •  

        Had Sanders spoke to end CSA or exempt cannabis from it, he wouldn’t be on the platform now.

        You sound like a single issue voter..there is no way Sanders and Paul are exchangeable votes…Paul would turn this place into Somalia and Sanders Europe.

        •  

          Interesting opinion you have on Sanders being “on the platform”. Can you point to the backlash Rand Paul has gotten for his stance on cannabis at the federal level? I don’t see why Sanders would get more backlash from Democrat voters than Paul has from Republicans. In fact, I think if Sanders favored cannabis legalization, he would have a much better chance at beating Hillary.

          You sound like someone who makes snap judgements about people without nearly enough information to do so. Somalia? Really? Or Sanders could turn this place into Venezuela or Cuba while Paul would keep this place the United States, if you want to play that childish game of demonization.

          Frankly, I would love the general election to be between Paul and Sanders, and I hope it happens. They are the best two of the two corrupt power parties when it comes to the issues I care most about, mainly life versus death regarding war issues, and freedom versus jail regarding domestic issues.

          And for the record, Sanders could no more turn this country into the poverty levels of Cuba in four years any more than Paul would be able to turn us into Somalia in 4 years. That type of political argument is asinine.

          •  

            ” if Sanders favored cannabis legalization”

            And he still wouldn’t get your vote, huh?

            Sanders has said the he’s going to have a statement on marijuana policy soon.

            “You sound like someone who makes snap judgements about people without nearly enough information to do so.”

            Says the guy who said Sanders never supported rescheduling.

            “Sanders could turn this place into Venezuela or Cuba while Paul would keep this place the United States”

            I know you’re saying that’s stupid, but Paul would change things plenty, like forcing women to give birth to rape babies (based on his past support of a Personhood Amendment). Luckily he’ll never get the chance.

            Here is a list of Socialist Democracies that might interest you:

            1 Denmark
            3 New Zealand
            5 Sweden
            6 Canada
            7 Norway
            10 Finland
            11 Netherlands
            12 Belgium

            Those numbers are their ranking in the Forbes best countries to do business in list.

            (US: 18th)

            http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list

          •  

            Dude, you really need to chill out. Flinging around such insults and hate and straw men only portrays our cause in a negative light and is not helpful. If anything, go direct your overly aggressive hate at the people that enjoy locking cannabis users in cages, like Bernie Sanders has done at the federal level for the past 24 years. I have no interest in conversing with your tantrums, so please refrain from responding to me if I decide to continue commenting here.

          •  

            Not only are you a blatant bullshitter and liar, but then you have the balls to boss me around.

            Now let’s see… What is it you consider an insult, and what do you consider a straw man? Cause it looks like you’re just throwing words around.

            You were wrong about Sanders twice. I called you out for it. If you think that’s an insult, then that’s three things you’ve been wrong about.

            “please refrain from responding to me”

            That’s hilarious. You want me to let you bullshit without saying anything about it?

            I don’t think so.

            “The good news is this: bullshitters have gotten pretty lazy, and their work is easily detected. Looking for it is kind of a pleasant way to pass the time—like an ‘I Spy’ of bullshit. So I say to you tonight, friends: the best defense against bullshit is vigilance. If you smell something, say something.”–Jon Stewart

      •  

        “Bernie Sanders has been in federal office for 24 years and has never supported taking cannabis out of Schedule 1.”

        Liar.

        > In 2005, he was one of the original co-sponsors of the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which would have rescheduled medical marijuana…

        http://www.theweedblog.com/marijuana-legalization-activists-should-support-bernie-sanders-for-president/

        •  

          I had not seen that, thank you for the correction, though lacking in couth. So in 2005 Sanders did support moving cannabis to Schedule 2 where it could be still be treated just like cocaine, which is also Schedule 2.

          Too bad Bernie Sanders still didn’t support removing cannabis from the CSA Schedules entirely, like Rand Paul introduced with Barney Frank in 2011, which would have ended federal prohibition of cannabis completely.

          •  

            Couth? You’re kidding, right? You stated something to be true when you had no idea if it was or not. You assumed that you knew the truth, and said whatever helped your argument. And you think I should have been nicer to you for it?

            “Sanders still didn’t support removing cannabis from the CSA Schedules entirely”

            You mean the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011? Which had 20 cosponsors, only 2 of which were Republicans?

            https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2306

            Sanders never got a chance to vote on that. The fact that he didn’t cosponsor something that never made it to a vote doesn’t mean he didn’t support it.

            So, now you’ve bullshitted twice.

            http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

            “…bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

        •  

          A liar is someone who knows the truth and states the opposite of the truth anyway. Someone can be wrong, as I freely admitted, without being a liar. If you are going to represent the socialist cause, you should be aware of the real definition of a liar, otherwise you are not helping your cause any as it just makes you look aggressive, uneducated and simple-minded when you call people liars without any notion of their prior knowledge.

          •  

            See above comment.

            As for representing a cause, I’m sure your GOP buddies are proud of you for openly lying, but to the rest of us, it makes you look willfully ignorant of facts one can easily find.

          •  

            You should seek professional psychiatric help immediately. My GOP buddies? Based on what facts? Are you openly lying about me being a GOP with buddies, or are you just plain wrong about that? One answer makes you a complete hypocrite and the other answer makes you a lunatic, you choose.

            If you are going to be that hysterical you really should seek professional help, there is something seriously wrong with your brain. Now stop conversing with me with your crazy talk and chill out if you don’t want to make other socialists like yourself look like angry imbalanced idiots.

          •  

            Why is it that you guys always accuse others of mental health issues? Do you just like to minimize the importance of mental health, or are you projecting?

            “My GOP buddies? Based on what facts?”

            Based on the fact that you’re praising Rand Paul.

            Now, the obvious thing here is what you’re avoiding which is that you could have googled Bernie Sanders’ marijuana record before you started spewing things out as if they were true, when they’re not.

            I see two definitions in Webster’s dictionary for liar:

            1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

            2 : to create a false or misleading impression

            Since I can’t know your intent (although I can certainly guess), I’m going with number two.

            Love the concern trolling:

            “you don’t want to make other socialists like yourself look like angry imbalanced idiots.”

            Rand Paul Glibertarians already look like angry imbalanced idiots, so I’m not particularly worried about you tarnishing their brand.

        •  

          peoriadude is right, Scott, there’s a big difference between a lie and an error. Liar isn’t a word you want to use loosely. “That’s bullshit’ seems a more effective retort when someone has their facts, for unknown reasons, wrong.

          •  

            “for unknown reasons”

            Heh.

            Here’s how this works: this winger has no idea if Sanders has ever supported rescheduling. He has Google at his fingertips. Instead of looking it up, he makes a statement that is the opposite of the truth.

            If there was no google, you might have a point. Had he said “I don’t think” or “as far as I know” then, sure. But he just comes right out and says Sanders never did what he actually did, it’s a blatant lie.

          •  

            Addendum: Websters: Definition of “lie”:

            2 : to create a false or misleading impression

          •  

            Interesting. I don’t support such usage of the word without considering the issue of intent.

            Was Sotomayor’s dismissal of the importance of cannabis legalization (even medicinal??) a lie by this standard? It creates a false and misleading impression of how important equality for cannabis users is.

  5.  

    That’s disheartening, all right. She is supposedly among the most wise and ‘judicious’ people in the country – yet, does not seem to understand the crucial issue of marijuana reform.

    Professor Julian Heicklen never smoked, or cared about, marijuana. But when he retired in 1998, he decided the most important thing he could do was to lead marijuana smoke-outs at the Gates of Penn State, every Thursday for more than a year. Of course, he was arrested several times. When asked why he was doing this, he replied:

    “Marijuana is the messenger, not the message. The issue is whether we will live in freedom or in tyranny!”

    •  

      She does understand it…thats why she responded the way she did

      They can’t just do anything they wan’t. There are bigger powers that be

  6.  

    Indeed, all the prohibition does is undermine the trust we put in justice and government, as this issue is so obviously handled very wrong.

    Often I like to think this is exactly the worst side effect of the prohibition. Loss of respect amongst at least 20-25% of the population for the authorities.

    It is amazing that a supreme court justice fails to see that point.

    •  

      Right. We’ve made Inquisition goons out of law enforcement, and the hysterical demonization permeates all institutions. – If anyone had told me 30 years ago you would have to urinate in a cup to get a job, I would have thought they were nuts.

      Thank goodness we’re ending this Reefer Madness – that only infects those who have never consumed it.

      •  

        The mental disorder of Reefer Madness disproportionately affects those in power: politicians, supreme court justices, police and prosecutors, doping boards for competitive sports, school officials, top management of most employers — the list goes on and on. It affects common folk to a far lesser extent, probably because it is the common folk who bear the brunt of the costs of prohibition. Passing ballot measures is great progress. But in order to achieve real reform, we must ultimately remove the prohibitionists from access to the levers of power, as they have done to us for so many decades. I do not mean a witch hunt, but rather an ultimatum to update their view to match science and reality or be removed from their positions of power via the ballot and economic pressure on employers who perpetuate prohibition.

        •  

          Right. And it seems the best way to do that is continue zapping the fiendish war on marijuana consumers – state by state.

          After California and some others join the Free States in November, next year, the crumbling fraud of the federal prohibition will collapse under its own dead weight – as soon as 2017.

        •  

          So you want anheuser busch and phillips morris to make the rules?

          Or just their customers?

  7.  

    After watching this video twice, I kind of have another impression of her speech. While, I can tell she personally doesn’t support the legalization of marijuana, she does however support the peoples (ie voters) right to make change to the law. Which in its self, is a good belief. It tells me she is likely not a staunch Prohibitionist, as many of these politicians maintain the prohibition attitude despite the changing views of the voter. She is telling those college students, if they want change, they need to become passionate with that change and vote. I also have a feeling, she could potentially have her personal views on the topic change as more evidence of positives become more available. Regardless thou, a judge is suppose to inturpret and apply law, in addition a judge must inturpret the constitutionality of a law.

    •  

      Cannabis enthusiasts make up about 16% of the population. If we want to see cannabis re-legalized nationwide then this is the type of mind we need to engage and influence in order to foster public support. From the sounds of it, Sotomayor is starting from a position that does not preclude reasoned discussion and this is a good sign.

      •  

        There is a reason they won’t hear an evidence based case on the Controlled Substances Act…

        It wouldn’t pass the Constitutional requirements…though the Cali supreme court did rule that laws need not be based in fact if it has a majority support. ;)

        •  

          In Gonzales v Raich (2005) Justice O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion. I recommend reading all of it if you haven’t already, but here’s a bit of note.

          This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. The States’ core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635 (1993); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 603, n. 30 (1977). Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering. Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation. In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause–nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes–rather than with precision. That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Accordingly I dissent.
          +
          The Court’s definition of economic activity is breathtaking. It defines as economic any activity involving the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. And it appears to reason that when an interstate market for a commodity exists, regulating the intrastate manufacture or possession of that commodity is constitutional either because that intrastate activity is itself economic, or because regulating it is a rational part of regulating its market. Putting to one side the problem endemic to the Court’s opinion–the shift in focus from the activity at issue in this case to the entirety of what the CSA regulates, see Lopez, supra, at 565 (“depending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commercial”)–the Court’s definition of economic activity for purposes of Commerce Clause jurisprudence threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach.

          The Court uses a dictionary definition of economics to skirt the real problem of drawing a meaningful line between “what is national and what is local,”Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S., at 37. It will not do to say that Congress may regulate noncommercial activity simply because it may have an effect on the demand for commercial goods, or because the noncommercial endeavor can, in some sense, substitute for commercial activity. Most commercial goods or services have some sort of privately producible analogue. Home care substitutes for daycare. Charades games substitute for movie tickets. Backyard or windowsill gardening substitutes for going to the supermarket. To draw the line wherever private activity affects the demand for market goods is to draw no line at all, and to declare everything economic. We have already rejected the result that would follow–a federal police power. Lopez, supra, at 564.

    •  

      you are correct Von, she is actually advocating for marijuana activism as a legitimate form of civil activism to bring us together. She just expressed herself carefully but affirmatively. She has always been for choice in an informed public. She talks to inspire the crowd and describes her part in the tail end of the civil rights movement to suggest what she is talking about in this video is part of the same activism. The only specific issue activism she talked about was legalizing marijuana because it is so connected to civil rights and is something that can be done now. Ending the criminality of marijuana would reverse decades of criminalized lifestyle issues used to subjugate blacks. This was not at all lost on Sotomayor or the people she was talking to. The fact she moved into the crowd really personalized and humanized the issue she was endorsing, free the weed and get on with other larger issues (yes there are a few! lol but weed is up there too ).

  8.  

    She says she knows how important it is to restore faith in government in this country, but she doesn’t have the slightest clue how alcohol supremacism over cannabis destroys that faith, turning American government and justice into a despicable fascist game. Quite a pathetic display of ignorance, Sotomayor. Vile discrimination is vile discrimination, Sotomayor, whether you can identify with the people being discriminated against or not. She’s so stupid she probably thinks alcohol and cannabis are equally dangerous.
    I hate liberals who dump on cannabis. Racial minorities, women, sexual orientation minorities, their rights are precious to liberals. For some reason, our rights are just so much chopped liver to them.

    •  

      She knows those things; she’s just ‘playing ball’. Whether she knows what crop was Thomas Jefferson’s favorite, is the bigger question.

  9.  

    One day, most of our citizens will realize how much damage prohibition has cost America. The death toll, the disease rates, the lost jobs and revenue, the sick eating poisonous pills every day, the amount of sick people there are and why, the alcohol causing death and destruction…

    It might take a while, but people will learn. Even more so than they already have.

  10.  

    That the Constitution was originally made out of “marihuana”, that America’s Founders mandated its agriculture and full use – is the firstmost reason why its prohibition should be a formal, criminal offense.

    •  

      You missed the part where the Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional…but you couldn’t forget that it was printed on hemp…

      I don’t see how it being printed on hemp has anything to do with the right to your own consciousness.

  11.  

    Though she barely brushed the the subject, she inferred a level of indifference to the racial disparities and other social injustices surrounding marijuana prohibition. She began a thread about keeping faith in God that perversely became a speech about faith in a government that chooses to imprison patients and addicts, effectively restricting the medical care they require. I choose faith in the former and a resistance to the latter.

    Those in favor of equality, scientific and medical advancement, creating economic growth, increasing tax revenues, tightening border security and restricting access to certain groups such as minors and drivers are in favor of proper marijuana regulation over the senseless chaos of prohibition, whether they know it or not, but trying to talk sense into the short-sighted and dim-witted is like trying to teach a blind idiot to drive.

    •  

      So we should sell crack to anyone?

      I don’t see how crack can be illegal if we aren’t going to imprison addicts.

      I’d say yes…as long as they can pass a proficiency exam and keep current with knowledge and responsibility.

      •  

        Since I expect not to be judged by people who choose alcohol or anything else, I cannot judge another for the vice they choose. If users will go to any lengths to get it, what is your rationale for keeping it from them? Who is really being harmed here? Besides, we all agree that you cannot help someone who does not want it, so we should at least make it easier for those who do want help by removing the stigma and fear of criminal punishment.

        You fail your own exam…

      •  

        Selling crack can be very illegal at the same time that using it is decriminalized and treated as a public health matter. Some European countries including Portugal have done this with illegal drugs with good results.
        The problems are that this approach keeps prices at black market levels, with addicts still committing crimes to get the money to pay those prices, and continues to empower the violent black market and its web of corruption.
        Why not offer addicts, at least, a deal: they can have their drug at a non-black market price, if it return they commit to not causing society any problems? That would be one hell of an incentive to them to not cause society any problems.

  12.  

    I didn’t know SCOTUS Justices were HATERS?????

    I thought they were there to interpret the law, not to hate on stuff.

    What do we expect from the least qualified one on the Court.

  13.  

    That is why the battle for legalization is a difficult uphill fight. Because most people in government and I do mean all three branches are not in our favor. There is nothing wrong with having a passion you truly believe in. THE REVOLUTION MUST CONTINUE…JOIN US.

  14.  

    College students are more concerned with their legal drug use than pervasive poverty around the world.

    Or, why is getting high more important than the thousands of children that go missing?

    •  

      Everyone’s own freedom has special importance to them, as it should, so what’s your point?

      •  

        If it didn’t get them high or they didn’t like it, they wouldn’t care about the freedom.

        Maybe we should stand for everyone’s freedom instead of just our own

        You have the right to shoot clean heroin in my opinion if you want as long as you can be otherwise decently responsible with your life.

        The Nazi’s wanted their own freedom and had no care for others freedom’s. Thats an exaggerated example, but punishing people for being drug addicts is like punishing them for being obese.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15256343

  15.  

    This is a bit of a tempest in a tea pot. Let’s hold our condemnation until the court rules on a case and see where she falls. I think she made an off the cuff comment without thinking it through and people are reading way too much into it.

  16.  

    Marijuana legalization affects evrry single issue going on in this country. It being illegal in most states is the real crime,stats are already showing way more positive then negative outcomes.

  17.  

    I could care less about Pot… Not really

  18.  

    let me tell you why that’s bullshit. the federal reserve has got the government by the balls. obviously it is doing something wrong. time for something new. sorry lady.

  19.  

    it is for a lack of faith in this Government that i vote fuck corporitized America, we are making changes, This is why Bernie Sanders is surging the vote away from Hillary

  20.  

    the question should not be why individuals would choose to exercise their basic freedom, but why the government believes it is entitled to withhold and criminalize a beneficial substance.

  21.  

    Sotomayor was always kind of viewed as this less than intelligent, but placed there simply due to her race. Her IQ is no higher than mine or yours, shes simply an affirmative action choice. Shes nothing special, certainly nothing to actually go listen to (anyone who was there was probably just there for the college credit). What she thinks is irrelevant. 420!!

 Leave a Reply