SCOTUS Rules On Weed

I've only peripherally followed the story line about SCOTUS voting 6-3 to uphold the current laws regarding marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes. I haven't gotten a breakdown of who fell where on the voting roll; I can well imagine where, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (by far the worst SCOTUS judge sitting on the bench) voted, but that's about it. But for what it's worth, I'll throw in my two cents on this issue.

In the same manner that no one, be they Republican or Democrat, has the balls to rattle their sabre about the porous southern border of the US for fear of alienating latino voters, the same holds true for the medicinal marijuana issue. Rare is the politician, be they in the House or the Senate, that has the cojones to actually push for legislation making medicinal marijuana legal with a prescription. Having witnessed first hand the hallucinatory effects of prescribed pain-killers, could marijuana stimulate any more illusory experiences than what is already out there legally? The answer is clearly no, but again, no politician wants to be the one to stand up on the floor of the House and Senate and say that this is wrong and it should change. The reasons are obvious, but it does highlight the fact that our elected representatives suffer from a deficiency in principles. Sure, they stand for something. But that something is remaining in office. In the end, they all look to the courts to make rulings on uncomfortable and controversial issues; that way, they never have to worry about taking unpopular stands. For some time now I've strongly objected to this whole "living document" philosophy of constitutional adjudication. The most salient reason is because it is anti-democratic and carries with it an element of judicial fascism. But more than that, what I object to is that it does the dirty work for elected officials that have neither the guts nor the principles to push for changes in laws, even when they're outdated and, in the case of medicinal marijuana, unfair.

SCOTUS voted correctly on this issue, not because they're right, but because it is the law. It is up to the legislative branch of the US government to change this law. I'll not be holding my breath waiting for the "parliament of whores" (as PJ O'Rourke put it) to deconstruct this statute. After all, no one would want to be accused of being a pot-head hippy-dippy stoner in the next election cycle. Not even Barbara Boxer.