George Middius wrote:
johnebravo836 said:


Presumably, you have not looked at how the individual justices on the
court voted. If you had, you would have noted that the three justices
typically regarded as most "liberal" voted in the majority, while two of
the three most conservative justices dissented.


If marijuana were a legal, regulated consumer product, it would probably cost
the same as tobacco. Even loaded up with sin taxes, excise taxes, and luxury
taxes. But nobody smokes a pack a day of weed (except Klingons).

I don't disagree; the current drug prohibition policy makes about as
much sense as alcohol prohibition did. Of course, there's next to no
political will in favor of changing this anytime soon.

My point was simply that, contrary to what the original poster
suggested, the decision does not in any way represent some sort of
victory for the conservative faction of the court. Clearly, the issue
foremost in the minds of the justices was states' rights and the scope
of federal authority. This is perfectly obvious from reading the
majority opinion (by Stevens), and the concurring opinion (by Scalia)
and the two dissenting opinions (by Thomas and O'Connor). Anyone who
suggests that this is some big conservative Republican victory either
hasn't read the opinions or doesn't understand them.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...3-1454.ZS.html