Well, that would justify banning booze.
I think he was saying that it would be impossible to distinguish illegal use of marijuana from illegal use, because anyone can claim it's for a medical condition.
No, the state requires a doctor's presecription.
Scalia succumbed. And then rationalized. It's that simple. He has an activist streak.
Yeah, it would. If the question was the constitutionality of the entire Controlled Substances Act, I would agree that it should be struck down as being beyond the federal government's powers, per the 10th amendment. But if he's proceeding from the assumption that it's within the feds' powers, then it makes no sense for the court to try to "manage" it this way and that.
No, the state requires a doctor's presecription.
Either the federal government has the power to enact a law like this, or it doesn't. I've already given my position on that, but along the same lines as above, if the court is proceeding from the assumption that Congress has this power, then it is not subject to further modification by state policy. They need to either bite the bullet and strike it down, or not. But playing these little games with it is only going to make our legal system that much more of a mess.