Social science - medical marijuana

[C1ay]

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]

...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]

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)?

[Queso]

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.

[bumab]

But, all preconceived notions aside, wouldn't alcohol and tobacco go in Schedual III as well?

[Biochemist]

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)?

Good question. Schedules are for prescription items only. If we were talking legalization, the Schedules would not apply. I would expect some handling like cigarettes or alcohol (an age and ID requirement).

 

If it were legal but ny prescription, I suspect Schedule III or even IV are possible. There aren't a whole lot of well know items on schedule IV. I think phenobarbital is Schedule IV.

[Biochemist]

But, all preconceived notions aside, wouldn't alcohol and tobacco go in Schedual III as well?

I suspect alcohol would go in schedule IV if it were prescription. There is no medicinal use for alcohol alone anymore, so it would not make the schedules now. I suspcet marijuana (or THC) would be schedule IV as well. It is pretty hard to kill yourself with marijuana, and I think the toxicity is part of the evaluation between schedules.

[bumab]

Is asprin on a schedual? I would imagine tobacco sales could be considered the equivalent of over the counter drugs (kind of), but with an ID requirement.

[Biochemist]

Is asprin on a schedual? I would imagine tobacco sales could be considered the equivalent of over the counter drugs (kind of), but with an ID requirement.

No. Most prescription drugs with little or no abuse potential are not on a schedule (e.g., ant-inflammatories, antidepressants, antibiotics, antihypertensives, etc). Those drugs are prescription, but not scheduled.

 

Then, those drugs that are perceived (by the FDA) as even lower public risk are over-the-counter. Sometimes, the dosage alone will make a product prescription. Ibuprofen is OTC at 200mg, and prescription at higher doses.

[bumab]

Hmmm... I'm still for legalization of marijuana.

 

Pros: Reduce attraction to minors. Allow taxation, bring revenues to the public benefit. Allow another source of income and international trade (I'm 10 miles from Canada, pots our biggest import)

 

Cons: Uhh... frequency of use would rise initially, but I doubt that would last.

 

The argument that pots a "gateway" drug would also fall with legalization. I'm willing to bet the only reason it's a gateway for some is it gets them over the "illegal" hurdle.

[Michaelangelica]

Check out this BBC site and vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/cannabis/?displayresults=1&configfile=ht_vote_cannabis.xml