Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor Agree

[rpm]

Originally posted by Toad
Then I'm sure you'll be supporting strict constructionists for replacement SC justices. Pretty much the kind of guys the Democratic Senators hate.

Right?

I will or will not support each judge based on his or her track record. Just as I do politicians.

[cpxxx]

My wife hurt her back recently. She was prescribed a drug that reduced the pain and made her mellow and a little spaced out. All perfectly legal. Marijuana does pretty much the same thing.

Marijuana should be be treated like any other drug. It should go through the full FDA procedure. Tests etc etc Then prescibed like any other drug as required.

The problem is that it has acquired this whole mystique because of it's illegality. If it had only been discovered last year. It would only be mentioned in medical journals as a yet another painkilling drug. Just like the one they gave my wife. It's all a question of perception.

In fact it seems these days the the drugs of choice for the celebs are in fact prescription drugs. Kelly Osbourne, that guy from Friends. They are all at it.  Hell! the only drug that isn't addictive is pot.

[Toad]

Oh, gang me all you like then.

I like good, tough discussions with folks that have strongly held values.

I like it even better when they're forced over to my side because of "activist" judges stretching the Constitution.



RPM, well.... just about all the majority voters on this issue have a track record of voting to expand the power of the Federal government over the States.

What you get is rulings like this one, where the Constitution is stretched way out of its normal shape to give the Feds powers they shouldn't have.

Might want to examine those track records closely for folks that don't support State's rights.  

Those that do support States Rights are usually found in the "strict constructionist" Constitutional camp. The kind Bush will appoint.  

[Toad]

There have been studies that show negative effects.

Not recommended for:
  Depression  Daily use of marijuana was associated with a 5-fold increased risk for later developing depression and anxiety among
adolescent females in a study of 1,601 Australian students aged 14-15 years at baseline who were followed for seven years. Weekly or more frequent marijuana use was associated with a 2-fold increased risk. Depression and anxiety in
teenagers was not predictive of later cannabis use. [BMJ 2002;325(7374): pp.1195-8]

  Schizophrenia  Having ever using marijuana was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia in a study of 50,087 Swedish men 18 to 20 years old. Using marijuana greater than 50 times was associated with a nearly 7-fold increased risk for developing schizophrenia. [BMJ 2002;325(7374): pp.1199-2001]

Similar results were obtained in New Zealand subjects. [BMJ 2002;325(7374): pp.1212-3]

[rpm]

Originally posted by Toad

RPM, well.... just about all the majority voters on this issue have a track record of voting to expand the power of the Federal government over the States.

What you get is rulings like this one, where the Constitution is stretched way out of its normal shape to give the Feds powers they shouldn't have.

Might want to examine those track records closely for folks that don't support State's rights.  

Those that do support States Rights are usually found in the "strict constructionist" Constitutional camp. The kind Bush will appoint.  

Ah, but I don't use State's Rights as the sole determining factor. Say, isn't O'Conner suppossed to be one of those liberal types? This decision was very mixed up.

[lazs2]

I hope they legalize pot so that I don't have to compete in life as much.   Anybody can beat a pot head.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by rpm
Ah, but I don't use State's Rights as the sole determining factor. Say, isn't O'Conner suppossed to be one of those liberal types? This decision was very mixed up.

Perhaps you should. It's one of the primary indicators of whether or not a Justice will support a huge stretch of the Constitution to cover an issue such at this.

You want more of this? Ignore their record as either a "strict constructionist" or an "activist".

O'Connor, I believe, is considered one of the middle of the road Justices. She's a "swing voter".