The Ninth Circuit’s Revenge

NRO ^ | June 09, 2005 | Randy Barnett

[longtermmemmory]

you just prove my point.

Prescriptions are regulated FEDERALLY.

The medical marajuana people should go through the FDA process to have it recognized. (like morphine)

Medication is federally regulated, period.

The states do not regulate medication.

The second the states tried to do the guise of "medical" it was doomed to failure. It would be no different than a state allowing any other unapproved medication.

NOW, if the citizens want to pass a straight legalization law without the issue of "medical", I think your arguments have validity. That is NOT the case under the present law struck down. Scalia's opinion essentially points that out, all legal or all illegal. (no little bit pregnant)

At that point it would be like Nevada having legalized prostitution. Ok WITHIN the state but not outside the state.

[dirtboy]

Prescriptions are regulated FEDERALLY.

A doctor can prescribe rest. Or massage.

Under your reasoning, the feds could regulate backrubs.

Once again, medical marijuana in California did not involve manufacturing of a chemical. It was nothing more than growing some plants, drying them, and distributing them within the state to patients. If the feds can regulate that, then they can regulate everything.

[neverdem]

The court essentially called the states on the absurdity of marajana as a "medicial" product.

I've had more than enough grief prescribing Marinol for my patients who needed appetite stimulation. Megace uses a progesterone analog that has its own problems. Since marijuana has been used as a medicine for more than a few millenia, and if you enter cannabinoid receptors OR endocannabinoid system into PubMed, you get at least 2422 results, I find your comment astounding both in regard to medicine and the Constitution.

[neverdem]

Please check what Sally Satel, from the American Enterprise Institute, has to say about the Fed's co-operation, or lack thereof, in medical marjuana research, Good to Grow.

[Smogger]

Those other painkillers are also subject to abuse, and frequently taken recreationally

Anyone who knows anything about pharmaceuticals SHOULD know that the most addictive and abused drugs are persecription painkillers. Ask Rush Limbaugh.

[oldbrowser]

In the bigger picture, I see an agenda here: an anti-American strategy to shred the U.S. Constitution via the 10th Amendment. This would be only one salvo in the bigger war.

There is no doubt that organizations such as the ACLU are intent on turning the constitution on it's head. It's been going on for many years. The courts have taken power from the administration and the legislature. They now have authority to rule on anything in anyway that suits them.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The medicinal aspects are not important. If one takes the time to read Steven's opinions one realizes a mindset willing to rewrite federal law using foreign law. Here he maintained federal government superseded state government. From a constitutional perspective, the will of the people has taken a big slap in the face. We have been through this before just recently.

[neverdem]

The medicinal aspects are not to be ignored. Why the hell do we have cannabinoid receptors? Trashing the Constitution is a separate issue.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The ruling doesn't deal with it so I choose not to. The majority decision was based on interstate commerce.

[dixiechick2000]

I like your post.



Sure do wish I could read it. ;o)

[Dog Gone]

I concur with your analysis. This was not a conservative decision, and Scalia was simply wrong.

I wish I could say it was the first time.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

And the SCOTUS decision, and specifically Scalia's concurrence, dealt with marijuana as a "fungible" commodity as the reason to allow federal control of it. Scalia argued there was no way to tell medical marijuana apart from illegal weed, even though states track booze within their borders with stamps and controls. So the argument basically boils down to, do we think the feds should be able to ban pot, and let's make up some reason why.

Scalia just dissented on legislation concerning disability on ramps for foreign cruise ships. His explanation was consistent with previous dissensions, America cannot be obligated to import foreign law.

The Americans Disability League or whatever they are tagged has prevented the firing of employees simply because they were alcoholics, a "disease". This type of mindset would make it impossible to remove a cruise captain from his position if discovered intoxicated, very much unlike the pilots who were recently found guilty. This was an emotional case.

[LibertarianInExile]

"This has been my knock on Scalia all along. He talks the talk on federalism, but has no problem doing the Wickard when it suits his views. Plus, he seldom if ever met a search and seizure he didn't agree with, so he is weak in that regard as well."

Yep, his personal opinions take precedence over the law.

Rehnquist does the same thing as Scalia when it comes to search and seizure, though.