WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Tuesday a ruling that the government cannot revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend medical marijuana to sick patients.
Without any comment, the justices rejected a Bush administration appeal of the ruling that bars the government from punishing and from even investigating a doctor’s conduct because of a recommendation that a patient use marijuana.
______________________________________________________________________ ________
INT. SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS
[Chief Justice William Rehnquist enters, followed by Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy.]
REHNQUIST: Well, that was interesting. The citing of U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers was predictable, but may be less relevant than… Where is everybody?
SCALIA: Dunno. Pee break, probably.
THOMAS: Heh heh - you said “pee.”
REHNQUIST: Shut up, Thomas.
[Justice David Souter enters, followed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sandra Day O’Connor, and John Paul Stevens.]
THOMAS: Hey guys!
REHNQUIST: Thank you, Justices, for retiring to chambers with such alacrity.
STEVENS: Huh?
SCALIA: Where were you?
GINSBURG: [Hee hee….]
BREYER: [Shhh!]
O’CONNOR: Oh my.
STEVENS: We were… talking to that lady. Who argued the… thing. About the stuff.
REHNQUIST: All right, well let’s move along. This one seems to be worth hearing, strictly for its free speech vs. controlled-
SOUTER: I vote No!
STEVENS: Right on!
BREYER: [Hee hee!]
GINSBURG: [Shhh! Hee hee!]
KENNEDY: Are you planning on offering any reason for you vote, Justice Souter?
SOUTER: It’s like…. totally unfair, that’s why. The government has no right to stop doctors from, like, talking.
REHNQUIST: Elegantly put.
SOUTER: No, wait, it’s like… the government is like a big, giant sandwich, right? And it’s got all kinds of meat in it, like ham, and turkey, and roast beef -
STEVENS: - and pastrami!
SOUTER: Totally. And corned beef, and like, tuna, and-
GINSBURG: Hey, anybody else want to get some -
O’CONNOR: Everyone shut up! [whispered:] I think someone’s listening.
SCALIA: Listening?
O’CONNOR: I heard something outside the door. Quick, close the curtains.
REHNQUIST: I’m sure the chambers are secure. Now, Justice Souter, let’s return to your point.
SOUTER: I don’t have to listen to a man in a dress.
GINSBURG: [Hee hee….]
BREYER: [Shhh! Heh heh!]
REHNQUIST: They’re robes. And may I point out that you’re wearing them too?
[Justice Souter looks down. Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens collapse in laughter.]
REHNQUIST: Okay. It’s pretty clear that we need to take a break, as you’re all obviously stoned.
SOUTER: No, you are!
REHNQUIST: What?
STEVENS: Right on! Let’s vote. Where’s Ruthie and Stevie?
BREYER: Down here - under the table. [Hee hee…]
GINSBURG: [Hee hee! Shhh!]
O’CONNOR: Did anybody else just hear something?
THOMAS: David, is that, uh, doctor lady still here?
[etc…]
Fanny Roborat
22 comments
Eric
October 14, 2003 at 3:27 pm
1I’m sorry, Adam, but that is pretty weak.
Steve
October 14, 2003 at 4:20 pm
2Do I hear someone singing “Oh, Canada!”?
-Steve
Chicory
October 14, 2003 at 4:53 pm
3I don’t think it is weak. The idea of the Justices getting stoned is pretty funny to me.
michael (in DC)
October 14, 2003 at 5:01 pm
4Does anyone remember the John Lovitz SNL sketch with failed Reagan SCOTUS appointee David Ginsburg as “Captain Toke”?
classic.
Murray
October 14, 2003 at 7:25 pm
5Supreme Court stoned? That would explain the Bush VS. Gore decision.
Anonymous
October 14, 2003 at 7:59 pm
6DUDE!!!!!!!
Pat R.
October 14, 2003 at 10:03 pm
7Stoned would not be sufficient explanation for the Bush v. Gore bloodless coup. Tripping, maybe.
Bob
October 14, 2003 at 11:53 pm
8Adam,
I don’t find this funny (amazing). My mother died of cancer. Before she died, she asked me for some marijuana because her doctor said it would help with the side effects of chemotherapy. As far as I am concerned, THIS is one of the issues that I CARE MOST ABOUT. I WOULD COMMIT AN ACT OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TO MAKE PEOPLE REALIZE HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.
adam
October 15, 2003 at 2:50 am
9Well….
I kinda agree with Eric. This was in some ways “weak” because it completely lacked a point of view. I just thought that stoned Justices would be funny.
They are. But I didn’t infuse this with any kind of opinion one way or the other, which is something I generally do around here.
For the record - I think medical marijuana’s a great idea. Hell, I think having legal alcohol and illegal marijuana is a very weird state of affairs. But that wasn’t my agenda here. This was just a sketch to pass the time, based on the idea that a stoned Supreme Court might be funny.
I’ll offer Insight again soon. But it’s my site and I reserve the right to be merely silly.
jannap
October 15, 2003 at 10:07 am
10I think we all need a dose of the silly every once in a while, and that is exactly how I took this post.
It certainly made me giggle, because I think that it was more a reflection on the personalities of the justices than on the merits of the case… that’s just me, though.
APJulie
October 15, 2003 at 11:15 am
11I didn’t think it was weak at all–I thought it was very funny. More of the silly, please, Adam!
Dugrless
October 15, 2003 at 12:18 pm
12When you’re ready to do Insight, here’s a suggestion: There oughta be a law… no, there oughta be a Constitutional Amendment that says that government can no way no how interfere with what a doctor tells a patient, either here in America or anywhere else in the world. Not by instituting gag rules, not by withholding funding, not by any means. This applies to medical marijuana, abortion, ingrown toenail care, … everything.
Actually, I’d like such a law/amendment to cover scientists’ discussions with the public as well (witness the Bush administration’s CDC website changes regarding condom use & the non-existent abortion/breast-cancer link, as well as modifications to environmental reports, etc), but right now I’d be willing to settle for respecting the doctor-patient relationship.
pete
October 15, 2003 at 2:29 pm
13dugrless, you raise an interesting point. a country that offers no universal health care, but _does_ offer intense scrutiny of the health care sytem (and as you said, presents nonmedical, even religious-based “facts”). a grave imbalance i would say.
especially if people - like Bob’s mother - are not receiving proper treatment in their most immediate time of need.
pete
October 15, 2003 at 2:31 pm
14on a COMPLETE tangent, i was wondering about evolution, and if there’s any biologists out there (or botanists) who can tell me: what natural defense or advantage does THC give to cannabis plants? just that animals would stop eating it because they would get high?
Anne
October 15, 2003 at 3:24 pm
15Pete, a particular trait doesn’t have to confer an advantage on an organism to get passed on, it just can’t confer a DISadvantage. OK, it’s not quite that simple. But some traits don’t affect survival at all, so they get passed on or not depending on dominance, etc. And traits can get passed on simply because they’re physically associated with a trait that DOES convey an advantage.
pot friendly
October 15, 2003 at 7:13 pm
16christ, you post one thing that doesn’t necessarily bash conservatives, and suddenly all the satire critics come out of the woodwork. grow up.
Benedict
October 15, 2003 at 7:43 pm
17Maybe there is an evolutionary advantage we haven’t considered: the plant produces something humans enjoy, causing those humans to tend the plants, encourage them to reproduce, and along the way, protect them from their natural predators and hostile environments.
Yes, pot friendly, they’re using you as much as you’re using them.
Dee
October 15, 2003 at 8:36 pm
18Actual headline in today’s USA Today:
“High court refuses marijuana case, accepts porn case.”
Unfortunately, the story does not continue:
Giggling Supreme Court justices today turned down a delivery of cannibis but eagerly accepted a large, plain brown wrapped package from the Adam and Eve Company. Justice Clarence Thomas was heard to remark “Somebody order a pizza. I got the VCR in my office.”
dave
October 15, 2003 at 9:05 pm
19That was funny Adam. Thanks. People just relax. It’s a blog for goodness sake.
Dugrless
October 16, 2003 at 12:00 am
20Answer to Pete, re: evolutionary advantage of THC — read “The Botany of Desire” by Michael Pollan. It’s a fantastic, engrossing exploration of plant adaptations in four parts: tulip, apple, potato and yes, marijuana.
davew
October 16, 2003 at 11:10 am
21THC is a fairly potent pesticide like caffeine.
Murray
October 16, 2003 at 3:46 pm
22Peter,
What works for one species may do nothing for another, and be dangerous to the next. Ever watch a cat get high on catnip? Can’t say it does much for me. Don’t give your dog chocolate, it won’t make him feel good; enough of it will make him feel dead.
Because most animals don’t chew on hemp (or roll and smoke it) the medicinal properties would be irrelevant to reproduction. What is relevant is that the seeds taste good to birds that disperse them.
Although it is possible that THC might have a benefit by repelling or reducing insects, fungus, or nematodes, (like marigolds) or it might reduce competition from other plants, (like black walnuts).
Hmmm.. I wonder if I can get a grant to study this