social science - medical marijuana

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by nkt

Sorry, you lost me.

Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj on one side is 5.

Scalia, O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J. makes 4 on the other, no?

Although it is not clear from C1ay's post, Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority (i.e., he agreed with the conclusion for different reasons). The other three had two separate dissenting opinions.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nkt

Sorry, you lost me.

Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj on one side is 5.

Scalia, O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J. makes 4 on the other, no?

Sorry my cut and paste left out that Scalia filed a concurring opinion, somehow I joined this with the dissent. The vote was:

Concur:
Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Jj and Scalia

Dissent:
O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Do note that the conservatives all voted against the majority that California had the right to make its own decisions. It was the liberal judges that gave the feds the right to extend enforcement.

Are you calling Scalia a conservative or a liberal here? It looks like his vote bridges the conservative/liberal split in the vote.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Are you calling Scalia a conservative or a liberal here? It looks like his vote bridges the conservative/liberal split in the vote.

Scalia is certainly a conservative (Scalia/Rehnquist/Thomas are). But Scalia offered a separate concurring opinion, joining with the majority. I did not read it, but it means he did not agree with the justification offered by the majority, just the conslusion.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Scalia is certainly a conservative (Scalia/Rehnquist/Thomas are). But Scalia offered a separate concurring opinion, joining with the majority. I did not read it, but it means he did not agree with the justification offered by the majority, just the conslusion.

Actually Scalia's concurring opinion opens,

"I agree with the Court’s holding that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) may validly be applied to respondents’ cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana
for personal, medicinal use. I write separately because my understanding of the doctrinal foundation onwhich that holding rests is, if not inconsistent with that of the Court, at least more nuanced."

Through the rest of his opinion he basically agrees with the majority's opinion that the Commerce Clause applies and spells out the additional and different reasons he feels so.

With his vote in the majority and O'Connor's in the dissent I don't particularly see it as a political split but, that is just my opinion. I was disappointed in reading that both the opinion of the majority and Scalia's opinion gave no consideration to the 10th amendment claims in the case which was the foundation for the dissenting votes. The majority completely sidestepped the issue. This dilutes the very sovereignty of states that the 10th amendment added to the Constitution as a part of the Bill Of Rights to begin with. For this reason I think the vote split was more of a state's rights vs feds rights.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

...For this reason I think the vote split was more of a state's rights vs feds rights.

Clearly. The vote had nothing to do with drugs, per se. The issue was whether an intrastate activity that is potentially inseparable from an interstate activity can be regulated under the commerce clause. The majority said "yes".

[Fishteacher73]

I think the issue with the cat. schedule has to do with a mix of medical usefulness counterbalanced with the drug's possability for abuse. Oxycontin seems to be much more hazardous than THC (in both phamaceutical as well as abuse), yet it can be sold w/ perscription (I don't know where it sits on the schedule, probably III, though).

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

I think the issue with the cat. schedule has to do with a mix of medical usefulness counterbalanced with the drug's possability for abuse. Oxycontin seems to be much more hazardous than THC (in both phamaceutical as well as abuse), yet it can be sold w/ perscription (I don't know where it sits on the schedule, probably III, though).

Oxycontin is Schedule II, just like all pure opiate preparations. Some of the weaker opiates (e.g., codeine) are Schedule III if they have some other product mixed with them (like the 30 mg of codeine with acetaminphen in Tylenol #3), but Schedule II if not so mixed. OxyContin (oxycodone) is always Schedule II, even if it has other stuff in it. Percodan and Percocet are oxycodone combination products.

Schedule III also has items like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Librium) that have some potential for abuse, but not nearly as much as the opiate narcotics.

You are correct in noting that most of the issue in assignment to Schedule I (and Schedule II for that matter) is potentail for abuse. Heroin is no more dangerous than morphine. It is just six times more potent. It is pharmacologically identical to morphine. But morphine is seldom an abuse target by drug traffikers, because they convert it to heroin to get more active "sellable" agent. Since heroin is essentially duplicative to morphine, it has no "incremental" value over morhine. Heroin is legal as a therapeutic opiate in some other countries.

[bumab]

So, going by your descriptions: potential for abuse, pharacutical value, etc. where would you place marijuana on the list (if at all, legalization is an option)?

[orbsycli]

well, looking at his description of schedule III...

Schedule III also has items like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Librium) that have some potential for abuse, but not nearly as much as the opiate narcotics.

it seems like marijuana would go here.