Mike the Usurper wrote:

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

While I certainly understand what Stevens is saying here, what I don't understand is how it applies. In this case they are talking about growing your own, not someone trying to make a profit.

This is a good question. In general the media consistently misreports Supreme Court decisions. Don't listen to them. The subtleties of this stuff are over the heads of the imaginary idiots the news media thinks its readers are. A good example is the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, which was largely misreported as "a strong affirmation of the rights of the accused," which I think is hardly accurate.

This Yahoo article raises a question about the distinction between federal laws related to "gun free school zones" and federal pot laws, but doesn't answer it. The answer to that question, and yours, are quite clearly spelled out in the decision. [PDF]