Then let’s reclassify it. Marijuana is not equivelent to heroin, cocaine, and other hard drugs; it does not belong on the same schedule.
Duuuuude, if you’ve ever bothered to read it (which Congress, our more recent presidents since at least 1860, and our Supreme Court members all obviously haven’t), you’ll have noticed little sections mentioning things like “if we didn’t say that Congress is allowed to do it, then they can’t” (to put it in the modern vernacular).
Just because they’ve gone ahead and done it anyway doesn’t mean that it was Constitutional. Look at COPA ferchrissakes, or the “Gun Free Schools” law that the SC shot down in flames a few years ago. Or campaign finance “reform” (real name: Incumbency Protection Act of 2001).
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
This is the part of your original post that had us talking about making pot in factories.
While I realize that money makes the world go around and that it is at the base of a lot of governmental decisions in this world and especially in this country, I think that to suggest that heroin is illegal because it poses a market threat to domestically produced drugs is…sorry, man, but it’s just pretty dumb. Right or wrong, people are MORALLY opposed to the drugs they are opposed to. When people see junkies lying around in the alley, they don’t think “What ever happened to the good old days, when kids were fucked up on good, strong, ALL-AMERICAN smack?”
This is the part of your original post that got me talking about homebrewing. Whether it is legal or illegal, I don’t think there have been any major crackdowns on homebrewing for personal consumption (although I hesitate to say that there have been none at all…). In a world of legalized marijuana, this would be the case for pot, too. Your post appeared to suggest that pot remains illegal because it can not be mass produced for a profit, which I don’t buy. There is a demand. I don’t see what more you need.
However…one might say that pot, smack, and LSD were easier to illegalize than alcohol and cigarettes because the government was able to pass laws against them BEFORE an industry grew around them. In the case of cigarettes and alcohol, they were just too culturally entrenched by the time anyone thought to “do something about it.”
You wrote,
Right or wrong, people are MORALLY opposed to the drugs they are opposed to. When people see junkies lying around in the alley, they don’t think “What ever happened to the good old days, when kids were fucked up on good, strong, ALL-AMERICAN smack?”
You must mean good, strong, all-American alcohol. Right or wrong, Americans shouldn’t enforce morality, they might be very wrong, see 1930’s prohibition to appreciate the creation of gangs, mafias, and crime in general (nothing like making a special demand for personal law enforcement). Also, the theory that heroin is outlawed for the terminally ill is widely believed to be political/economic. You give pharmaceutical companies too much credit for logical fair play, and to me it sounds, well, dumb.
There are some procedural issues of interest.
What’s before the Court right now is an interlocutory appeal, not a final verdict.
The feds sought to enjoin the Oakland pot boys from distributing pot. The Oakland Cannibas crowd wanted to use the defense of necessity at trial; the federal district judge ruled they could not. They appealed that ruling – bear in mind, there’s been no trial yet – to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed.
This injuction is somewhat of a novel approach for criminal law; the government’s usual approach to enforcing the law is to wait until someone breaks it and then arrest and prosecute.
- Rick
kabbes, I’m sure that you will note that these are allegedly factual axioms, and I am therefore justified in saying to Brian: Prove it.
To make it easier, a few suggestions:
- Look to when heroin was criminalized, then look to when synthetic opiates were commercially developed.
- Ask yourself, if the pharmaceutical industry considers heroin a threat its bottom line, why are synthetic opiates and heroin sold to different markets? Codeine, etc., are prescription drugs sold to the medical industry, while heroin is marketed as a recreational drug. To really rake in the dough, the hegemonic pharmaceutical industry, having eliminated the threat of heroin, should really bribe Congress into allowing them to sell synthetic opiates without prescriptions.
- As for the “value added” business, ask yourself: (a) is there any reason to believe that legal pot would be cheaper than legal alcohol? and (b) is there no room to add value to marijuana? The THC content in pot has risen dramatically in the last few decades, and today the stuff with more THC sells for more. Imagine what those scientists at Merck could do to add even more THC to pot, and the premium they could charge.
Of course, you are right about LSD and religion. In Mark 14:23, Jesus said, “1900 years from now in far off Helvetia, a man will invent a synthetic hallucinogen. Thou shalt not ingest it; it is forbidden.”
Full disclosure: as I have demonstrated many times on this board, I am fully in favor of legalization of all drugs. So please, don’t call me a Pat and Jerry conversative. Thanks.
Sua
And this, I think, is why the feds will lose this case. A good deal of the questioning by the Supremes centered on whether the feds were trying for this injunction because they know that juries would be extremely unlikely to convict a mortally ill person for smoking pot in order to obtain relief.
My interpretation of the oral arguments lead me to believe that the Supremes will come back with an extremely narrow decision against the feds. The Supremes don’t like the cannabis club’s arguments, but all judges HATE cynical tactical moves by lawyers.
Sua
I haven’t seen a transcript of the oral arguments, Sua, but my impression from the news reports was that the justices were not very pleased that the club was raising the “medical necessity” defense on its own behalf. That might be a decent argument from a patient, but not from the deal…, er, pharmacist. You don’t usually get to raise somebody else’s rights to defend your own actions, after all. And if medical necessity isn’t a good defense for the club, then they lose the battle against the injunction.
Yeah, you’re right, **Minty[/by] - the Supremes didn’t like the club’s argument at all. My reason for thinking that the Supremes will rule against the feds is that I think the Supremes want to dodge the issue as long as possible, and, of course, like to decide cases as narrowly as possible - unless Scalia’s leading the way. 
The narrow procedural point gives them a nice out.
Sua
But if they wanted to dodge the issue, why would they grant certiorari? That’s the usual way they dodge important questions [sub]the bloody cowards[/sub].
What, no demand for a cite? Has this request lost its vigor in favor of demands for proof? With suggestions no less? (I will miss the amusement that comes from watching cites properly devalued after they are improperly demanded, not necessarily by you. An era gone by, hopefully, sniff, sniff, what will the poor bible-thumpers do? Reason for once?). By the way, what is an “alleged factual axiom”? Also, assuming it exists, what “factual axiom” placed marijuana on a drug schedule with LDS and heroin, all different substances and all unrelated in terms of addiction and dangers and pharmacological usefulness? What is the “axiomatic” requirement for a “Schedule One” to begin with? Sounds politically impressive, whatever the hell it is. Whose schedule is it anyway? Better yet, what is the alleged scientific data that keeps heroin away from doctors when they have equally powerful synthetic opiates, such as fentanyl, for them to prescribe? Anyway, begin here to obtain an overview of haphazard drug regulations, notice that Utah is credited with beginning the anti-marijuana legislation, which then morphed into an anti-Mexican campaign among the states, and the word marijuana was then borrowed to obscure cannabis, and to emphasize the racialism.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ophs.htm
Now for the problems in proving a conspiracy that “heroin is also illegal” because it competes with pharmaceutical companies other products. First and foremost, I never asserted that heroin was “made” illegal for the same reasons it remains illegal today, although I may assert it in the future, since racism and opium laws have a long history and this relates to importation (California once placed a landmark restriction on Chinese immigration for no cited reasons, but many feel it had something to do with religion). Secondly, heroin is synthetic (as chemists use the term), as is demerol, methadone, and many others developed before WW2, and many doctors currently want heroin to be legalized for prescription use (I just read this in some med student’s pharmocology notes online). How it ended up on the 1971 “schedule one” list with marijuana and LSD, but not morphine, has more to do with PR associated with social phobias associated with racism and classism and work ethic and even hippies/slackers, besides the fact that the powers that be wanted it that way and the street competition heroin offers.
As far as proof goes, the first problem is that it cannot be proven or disproven. (It could all be due to the fact that people are terrified of needles for all we know). We must ask ourselves, however, why many cancer doctors now want it back to prescribe, why Europe never banned it, and why it remains unprescribable even though consumers stand to benefit from it. As we know, the government acts on behalf of the groups that enjoin it. I see no consumer group mandating that heroin be unprescribable, to the contrary, and nobody ever proved it should be so, so the burden of proof rests with them, not with people seeking to overturn it. (My interest is more in getting rid of the idea of “schedule one” to begin with, which is pure concentrated supply-side power if you ask me).
Note: When heroin was first outlawed, it was against the hundreds of small nostrum and soother makers pushing it on babies (seriously). It was even fully investigated as to where it came from in the Orient by emmissaries (some who were missionaries) and made illegal by federal tax means. Now, how did this drug become MORE illegal as time went on in the wake of large pharmaceutical giants who are not in the habit of allowing useful alkaloid derivatives to be banned. I don’t know, that was my other point. It seems you want me to prove something you can’t explain or disprove. I only need to EXPLAIN why this is so, not prove it, which is not upon me, since only a substance that causes more disease should be unprescribable.
Need we assume that competition also infects the regulatory environment? If so, then we’re halfway there. Did heroin also get banned because it was too efficient? Probably, we don’t need just one reason, in fact, to the contrary. We at least know that a drug may get in more legal limbo because its too good for pain relief AND is a target of inquiry because the raw material comes from overseas, unpatented by an American firm, and is historically associated with Chinese non-Christian immigrants. The missing link here is the zeitgeist. Heroin was outlawed during prohibition fever. Prohibition was a grassroots Christian revival. But this still does not explain 1971 “schedule one” and the fact that demerol, codeine, morphine, fentanyl, and a half-dozen other opiates are legal to prescribe and still addicting.
By the way, Sua, your approach implies that the lack of proof makes something false to assert. May I remind you that a fallacy is a false proof, not a missing one. In fact, only in law would this misconception be hatched, perhaps because you might lose a case if you can’t prove something. We can’t prove a secret conspiracy that is substantiated by solid reasons, voter apathy, and economic motive and was suddenly banned from the top, but I can assert it for your consideration, and you are free to counter-assert it with explanation, which you have declined. I assert that since heroin’s current doctor ban is unexplainable from a medical or ground-swell political point of view, hence it is economic. See “creation versus evolution” debates and notice the folks who demand proof of a scientific fact while asserting creationism. They resort to selective science just as this thread on marijuana has resorting to selective economic motives, the largest economic motive of all being control of raw materials, as the chemical-timber industry controlled the debate on “marihuana” through newspaper barons (who are feared by politicians). I am always amused when people still believe marijuana causes violent addiction, as it was first demonized. Their next question is often, “Then why is it illegal?” (circular reasoning implied, of course) In other words, they don’t know or understand. When there is no logic, there is always money to persuade others.
The following are for general interest in drug research, which is necessary to understand to learn about human civilization and human motivation and religion.
Here is a cite about heroin/opium being outlawed in Canada for racial reasons:
An article about patent laws preventing a hallucinogenic cure for heroin:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/991206/heroin.htm
An article describing the search to replace addictive methadone:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/health/addiction/lhadd038.htm
“Although manufacturers have not priced the new drugs, they will be more
expensive than methadone, which no longer is under patent restrictions and
costs just pennies a dose.”
http://www.undcp.org/bulletin/bulletin_1953-01-01_4_page006.html
"The variety of rearrangements which morphine undergoes has earned for it, in the words of Sir Robert Robinson, the reputation of being “a star performer among molecular acrobats”. It is hoped that this article has shown that morphine, possibly to a greater extent than any other single natural product, has created extensive interest among organic chemists. Those chemists who have, in whole or in part, successfully attacked the problem of its synthesis, have been more than once rewarded, perhaps because of the elusiveness of the “star performer” with rich gifts of stereochemical good fortune by a merciful and bounteous Providence.”
Baby nostrum “soothers”:
http://lhc.nlm.nih.gov/M3W3/phs_history/phs_history_106_content.html
http://www.heroinaddiction.com/heroin_timeline.html
“Addiction had become such a problem in the United States by 1920 that the American Medical Association recommended prohibiting heroin’s manufacture and sale. Heroin production was outlawed in 1924.”
Do a search on “Air America” and “Opium” to learn about the secret motives for the Vietnam war. The US government was knee deep in supplying the world with cheap heroin. Heroin is still making someone a lot of money, if not from overselling morphine or fentanyl, then the CIA marketing it directly to raise funds for wars and covert operations. It is not outlawed for doctors to prescribe simply because of some voter misunderstanding or the fact that the government cares so much about preventing doctors from becoming junkies. Pharmaceuticals know exactly what the hell it is and could have it if they wanted it.
Note: I do not support the unrestricted access or legalization of any addictive drug for public sale, as heroin nostrums and Coca-cola and cigarettes are social proof to the profit-taking of addictive substances. I support drug laws that favor affordability and government regulation and price controls. I assert that the reason no effective anti-addictive medication exists in quantity today, is because drug companies haven’t figured out how to have it both ways yet and religion is still selling itself as an addiction cure/replacement.
Then please assert it as your opinion, not as fact.
Hmm, only the law do we need to show proof? Interesting theory.
Business: “Hey boss, there is a huge market out there for left-handed smoke shifters! Let’s spend $100 million starting up a factory and developing marketing routes.” “Have you done any research to determine the market for the smoke shifters?” “Um, no. This isn’t law, we don’t need proof.” “You’re fired.”
Medicine: “Well, gosh, I’m sorry your father died of cancer. I was positive that aspirin would cure the disease.”
Science: “I am positive that if I think of lollipops, I can fly. Let me demonstrate by stepping off this cliff.”
BTW, the civil law (which I practice) actually has a lower standard of proof than business, medicine, science, etc. Our standard is that something is simply more likely than not.
A final note, when did I decline to counter-assert anything? My only comment to you has, once again, to point out that if you are going to argue a position, your position is stronger if it is the truth.
Sua
Excellent point, minty. I’m not quite ready to concede, but I admit the ground, it is atrembling under my feet. 
Sua
First: Pot is NOT illegal in every state of the US.
Second: There has to be a way to regulate quality so you don’t get a bunch of Parquat infected pot.
But most of all, the people got pot first, not the drug companies, so they are pissed & want to keep it illegal cause they don’t make anything on it.
I think the medical use of pot should be allowed, along with every other consensual use of pot by and among adults (only).
The arguments above, regarding the inability of the pharmaceutical firms to make money off marijuana as one reason for its illegality, ring very true. Think of one other aspect that hasn’t really been mentioned: the criterion of effectiveness. Some opponents to medical MJ argue that its effectiveness is insufficiently documented.
For a drug to be legal, it must be judged to be effective as well as safe. I’d say for other drugs, the effectiveness “hurdle” is set quite low. Consider Rogaine…supposedly only effective in perhaps 60% of patients, and half of them only get peach fuzz, not real hair. If you add in the men with near-total baldness who wouldn’t even be advised to try it, you have an EXPENSIVE drug which was touted as a historic first in treating baldness, which is only MARGINALLY effective in a SMALL percentage of all bald men. But note that word “expensive”…I think it tells the whole story.
So coming back to medical marijuana, even if only 25 or 50% of patients find that it relieves their symptoms, then that ought to count as being more than adequately effective.
Hmmm, maybe Brian has been sharing after all.
Cite please? Non-medicinal use is quite definitely illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. And no wussing out with the “medical necessity” exceptions in Washington (?), California, and Arizona. Besides, as you’ll see in a couple months, the state medical necessity exceptions get trumped by federal law. Remember, I called it here first: 8 votes to 0 in favor of shutting down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative.
So we must make it legal 'cause if it’s illegal somebody might get hurt? Yeah, that’ll go over real well at the Supreme Court.
So out of the thousands upon thousands of drugs that people self-medicate with–just look at all the pricey, useless shit on the shelves at GNC–the drug companies have singled out exactly one substance to be the target of their irrational ire? You betcha.
8-0. The opinion isn’t posted anywhere yet, but I’ll try to take a look at it over lunch and give a quick synopsis of the legal analysis.
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative
The majority opinion is from the usual 5-member majority: Thomas authoring, joined by Rhenquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. It takes a hard-line stance, broadly declaring that the Controlled Substances Act makes marijuana illegal, state laws to the contrary be damned. No such thing as the medical necessity defense exists, 'cause Congress has already decided that marijuana is not medically necessary.
The concurring opinion (Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg) says most of the majority’s opinion is dicta, since the only question before the Court was whether the cannabis clubs could use the medical necessity defense to avoid being shut down. The concurrence basically says that defense doesn’t belong to the distributors, but would leave it an open question whether patients and their primary physicians could assert a medical necessity defense.
I think the result of all this is that medicinal marijuana is still legal under California law, but that even California residents are still subject to being busted if the feds decide to go after them via the Controlled Substances Act.
I have received a little first-hand information on the ruthlesness of pharmaceutical companies, and I can understand at least part of the point Brian is making, although I can’t say I agree with the whole argument. My fiancee works in the natural health industry, and it is surprising how pharmaceutical companies will bring pressure to bear when required. Natural products that have passed clinical and laboratory tests and are therefore more or less bona fide (at least it is established they are not your average snake oil remedy) are marketed to pharmacies, apothecaries, etc. In many cases, and it is rare for natural products to pass clinical and lab tests because a lot of natural stuff is just bunk, the large pharmaceutical companies threaten to withdraw their products from a pharmacy if a competing natural product is purchased by the pharmacy.
I have seen what heroine does to people and I have to say that it is hands down the most disgusting drug there is, and I happen to like some other drugs. So I don’t know exactly why heroine is banned in the US, but whatever the reason is, that’s good for Americans. I don’t know how medicinal opiates compare to heroine, but I simply can’t imagine they come close.
On the topic of Marijuana, well, everyone needs a crusade, especially people in public positions. It’s no longer PC to attack the blacks, the gays, the foreigners, etc, but drugs are still fair game for the squares, and no doubt will continue to be.
But nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court can rewrite a law because they think it is bad policy. The issue before the Court was whether there was a medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act. There isn’t. End of case.
We can debate whether there should be an exception or whether marijuana should be legalized all day long. But the bottom line is that the Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws, not the Supreme Court.
I think marijuana should be legal, but I also think the Supreme Court made the right decision in refusing to legislate from the bench.