[robertpaulsen]

"... had not yet determined that the "legitimate medical purposes" referred to in the CSA did not include assisted suicide"

This is why you need to be specific. I was referring to my comments on the 9th Circuit ruling on Raich v Ashcroft.

The CSA was passed by both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President over 30 years ago. Every federal court ruling since then and prior to the Ninth's ruled the CSA constitutional. Every one. Even the dissenting judge in Raich v Ascroft said it was constitutional.

How much more "established federal law" can it be?

My interpretation my a$$.

[inquest]

This is why you need to be specific. I was referring to my comments on the 9th Circuit ruling on Raich v Ashcroft.

You made the same "treason" remark in regard to Oregon vs Ashcroft.

The CSA was passed by both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President over 30 years ago. Every federal court ruling since then and prior to the Ninth's ruled the CSA constitutional. Every one. Even the dissenting judge in Raich v Ascroft said it was constitutional.

The 9th wasn't declaring the CSA unconstitutional in OvA; it was simply stating that the act didn't have the same scope of applicability that Ashcroft said it had. You interpreted differently, so you called it treasonous. If that's treasonous, then the English language simply hasn't provided an adjective sufficient to describe Miller.