[dirtboy]

The federal government regulates medication. This was a case of medication.

The feds overreach here. Morphine is medication. And you can get it prescribed under federal law.

Marijuana cannot be prescribed, period.

But it's a plant. You can grow it like tomatoes. People in California grew it and consumed it, without commerce and without the plant crossing state lines, under the auspices of state law.

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.

Which is activism.

[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.

[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.