To make matters worse, the court cited Raich, which said the federal government can deny medical marijuana to sick people who need it, to affirm its position. Thus, thanks to the extra-constitutional drug war, and the absurd lengths the courts have gone to find some constitutional justification for it, the bureaucrats at the FDA can now deny terminally sick people the medication that could save their lives. And not even because it isn't safe, but because it hasn't been proven effective, at least according to standards set by the FDA.
This isn't surprising. It's a predictable application of drug war philosophy. If the government can stop you from putting drugs in your body that make you high, it's a short leap to say that the government can let you die while waiting for drugs that could save your life, albeit still in the name of "protecting" you.
But that doesn't make it any less appalling. If the Ninth Amendment doesn't include the right for a person with a deadly disease to put potentially life saving medication into his body, then it means nothing at all. And I guess that's where we are. It means nothing at all.
I can't imagine what it must feel like to be dying, or to watch a loved one die, while the FDA hems and haws over whether it's going to let you live or not. I hope I never have to.
Ping
Mere mortals like you and I must stand behind the door like small children, listening without comprehension to the deep and reasoned pronunciations that will be handed to us like stone tablets from the Mount, to be obeyed without questioning...
This supports my belief that to be a federal judge the portion of the brain which provides common sense is surgically removed before they are allowed to sit on the bench.
Sorry, folks, but if I have a serious disease, the very last thing I give a crap about is the legality of the medications I choose. Let the lawyers fight about that sort of thing after I'm gone.
It is a principle of jurisprudence that the court should not make a ruling that cannot be enforced and will not be obeyed.
The reason is simple: Respect for the rule of law and the judicial system is reduced when such rulings are made. Perhaps the court should remember the futility of Prohibition, which was unquestionably constitutional, before it makes such stupid pronouncements.
Well, yes.
The constitution could not, and was never intended to, serve as a document enumerating all of the people's rights, nor for that matter, to give them any at all. Rather, it is intended to look upon writings of the history of nature and civilization to determine those things that are held as rights. Think, for one, of privacy. Not in the constitution, but the foundation of Roe V. Wade, nevertheless.
Such rights are limited by government only through the specific causes and powers granted to it by the constitution. Further, government use of those powers are limited to only those things that are necessary to further the public good.
Indeed, (being) free from regulation based solely upon a prior lack of regulation...
...would be the default unless and until a legitimate reason to alter it and the specific power to do so are established by the government.
Perhaps a bit murky, but it's clear enough with whom rests the benefit of the doubt.