The Supreme Court Does It Again

The medical marijuana debacle in the Supreme Court today has been discussed ad nauseum. But there was a particular part of the decision that jumped out at me like a 500 pound ape in an orange blazer. On page 28,

Indeed, that the California exemptions will have a significant impact on both the supply and demand sides of the market for marijuana is not just .plausible. as the principal dissent concedes, post, at 16 (O.CONNOR, J., dissenting), it is readily apparent. The exemption for physicians provides them with an economic incentive to grant their patients permission to use the drug. In contrast to most prescriptions for legal drugs, which limit the dosage and duration of the usage, under California law the doctor.s permission to recommend marijuana use is open-ended. The authority to grant permission whenever the doctor determines that a patient is afflicted with .any other illness for which marijuana provides relief,. Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §11362.5(b)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2005), is broad enough to allow even the most scrupulous doctor to conclude that some recreational uses would be therapeutic.39 And our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so.40

Take that for a minute and chew on it. Patients who are testifying that the only treatment that has provided them any relief have to take a back seat to a fear that the Supreme Court has that the prescription of medical marijuana might be abused by unscrupulous physicians.

I know this isn’t the primary reasoning in the case. In fact, the main thrust of the decision is that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. Rush Limbaugh sums up the idiocy of this argument best:

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state’s economic activity so long as it involves interstate commerce, and that’s what’s interesting about this because there arguably is no interstate commerce in this. If you are sick in California…

He’s absolutely right. Where’s the interstate commerce issue here? Sick patients in California are being treated in California under California law.

It’s amazing the way the Supreme Court will contort and twist to make policy. Really. First a ridiculous argument that Marijuana shouldn’t be prescribed because of the potential for abuse. Then they argue that they have a right to make that decision because they can regulate interstate commerce.

I wonder if the justices on the court have heard of the abuses of drugs like prozac and ritalin (or their side effects). As I wrote on 8/23/04, welcome to crazy world. When we don’t trust doctors to prescribe medicine like marijuana and we do allow them to prescribe much stronger meds, something is wrong.

People should be allowed the treatment that makes them feel better. If doctors aren’t trustworthy, remove them, but don’t make that the basis for an argument. And something needs to be done about the Supreme Court and their idiotic interpretations of the law.

This decision benefitted no one. The conservatives that pushed for it aren’t going to be happy with the idiotic path to the decision and the interstate commerce aspect. The people who now can no longer have the treatment they need will not be happy about it.

All in all, a typically devastating decision for the idiots in the black robes.

This entry was posted in Silly. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://seekingsanity.blogspot.com/ Kricket

    The potential for abuse is there regardless of legality. Vicodin is a legal pain relief drug, one that I take every day for my pain. There are countless prescriptions written for it each day, and and countless people entering rehab because of their addiction to it, including abuse. My biological father uses pot for pain, thanks to a prescription. He uses it less than I use my Vicodin. Judgement is impaired severely with most pain pills that are available, just as much as getting high does.

    Personally, if it relieves pain and helps the patient live a fuller life, it is safe to use from a medical standpoint, then I think it should be available. People are going to abuse whatever they want regardless of how easy it is to get or whether it is legal to obtain.

    (sorry If I was rambling…. 6am with very little sleep and no coffee yet… but I’m sure y’all get the idea of what I’m trying to say… )

  • peejz

    From the research I have done, and I relied heavily on the AMA, there is no clinically proven benefits that out weigh the detriments of pot. There is a need for research though. That is a must.

  • Sirrios

    “It’s amazing the way the Supreme Court will contort and twist to make policy.”

    It’s amazing that when the bone of contention is on your plate at the Supreme court is overstepping its boundries, you don’t seem to mind (see presidential elections, see Terry Schiavo).

    Not that I disgaree with the side you are taking on this issue, but I disgaree on the concept you stand for. You cannot “have it your way” when it fits your agenda. Either the Supreme Court stays out of ALL state business or they don’t. Can’t pick and choose.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Actually, Sirrios, the problem is you, not me.

    You believe that states have a right to kill people, therefore you saw Terri’s case as a States Rights issue. I didn’t, therefore no contradiction.

    There is no constitutional issue at stake in this case. That’s why I don’t think the Supreme Court has a right to make a decision on it. Someone’s life, or the election of the President is a somewhat different situation!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    there is no clinically proven benefits that out weigh the detriments of pot.

    There are plenty of people who believe there is, though, and research is indeed imperative.

    However, let’s ponder this for a minute. If we don’t allow marijuana, then what? Do we not allow accupuncture? Or aromatherapy?

    At what point do we stop allowing treatments that people want or that doctors recommend? Sure it’s a slippery slope, but that’s the way precedent works.

  • peejz

    First of all, there are alternatives available in place of marijuana. Secondly, the SC does have business getting involved as it falls under their jurisdiction. They did not take the right of the state to allow medicinal weed, they just upheld federal drug laws. (As dumb as that sounds!)
    We need research!!!! I can’t stress it enough.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    I think this is just a misguided attack in the War on Drugs. Think about it, peejz — we’re talking about medicinal uses, here, prescribed by trained physicians, not some grand OK for recreational use. The only time in my life I’ve ever used marijuana came four or five weeks into treatment for leukemia, many, many years ago. It’s not something that I even WANTED to use. As it turns out, over the course of several months in and out of the hospital, I became addicted to a different drug — demoral — that was also given to me regularly as part of my treatment.

    As with every aspect of treatment, my docs weighed the benefits with the detriments, and, yes, there was plenty of evidence supporting their decisions to provide me with medicinal marijuana.

    Vinny’s question is a good one: “at what point do we stop allowing treatments that people want or that doctors recommend?” I’d add one more: at what point do we cause serious long-term damage to our health care system when politicians and judges determine how physicians care for their patients?

  • peejz

    RKB-First of all, let me start by saying that I am glad to see that you survived such a horrible disease. Not all are as lucky as you. Secondly, you were treated many years ago. Many years ago, they had pot rooms in hospitals. Since that time, through research, they have developed many drugs that have taken the place of pot. A doctor is bound to obey the law. A doctor within the 10 states that have pot laws can still prescribe it. A doctor outside those states can not, but they can offer many other drugs. If you feel so strongly about the benefits of pot, you might want to start encouraging the researching of this.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    I should clarify, peejz. By “many, many years ago,” I mean fifteen. In 1990, I received what many consider “medicinal marijuana” — a pill format, probably even synthetic THC. There was no smoking of anything involved.

    I don’t feel strongly about the benefits of pot. But I do feel that physicians should be able to prescribe the most effective medicine. If you’re suffering severe back pain, for example, morphine works well. Works much better than, say, aspirin. If you’re allergic to penicillin, there are alternatives to that, too, although they’re less effective.

    I don’t think it should be up to the Supreme Court to dictate whether or not physicians are able to prescribe the most effective medications.

  • http://seekingsanity.blogspot.com/ Kricket

    The potential for abuse is there regardless of legality. Vicodin is a legal pain relief drug, one that I take every day for my pain. There are countless prescriptions written for it each day, and and countless people entering rehab because of their addiction to it, including abuse. My biological father uses pot for pain, thanks to a prescription. He uses it less than I use my Vicodin. Judgement is impaired severely with most pain pills that are available, just as much as getting high does.

    Personally, if it relieves pain and helps the patient live a fuller life, it is safe to use from a medical standpoint, then I think it should be available. People are going to abuse whatever they want regardless of how easy it is to get or whether it is legal to obtain.

    (sorry If I was rambling…. 6am with very little sleep and no coffee yet… but I’m sure y’all get the idea of what I’m trying to say… )

  • peejz

    From the research I have done, and I relied heavily on the AMA, there is no clinically proven benefits that out weigh the detriments of pot. There is a need for research though. That is a must.

  • Sirrios

    “It’s amazing the way the Supreme Court will contort and twist to make policy.”

    It’s amazing that when the bone of contention is on your plate at the Supreme court is overstepping its boundries, you don’t seem to mind (see presidential elections, see Terry Schiavo).

    Not that I disgaree with the side you are taking on this issue, but I disgaree on the concept you stand for. You cannot “have it your way” when it fits your agenda. Either the Supreme Court stays out of ALL state business or they don’t. Can’t pick and choose.

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Actually, Sirrios, the problem is you, not me.

    You believe that states have a right to kill people, therefore you saw Terri’s case as a States Rights issue. I didn’t, therefore no contradiction.

    There is no constitutional issue at stake in this case. That’s why I don’t think the Supreme Court has a right to make a decision on it. Someone’s life, or the election of the President is a somewhat different situation!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    there is no clinically proven benefits that out weigh the detriments of pot.

    There are plenty of people who believe there is, though, and research is indeed imperative.

    However, let’s ponder this for a minute. If we don’t allow marijuana, then what? Do we not allow accupuncture? Or aromatherapy?

    At what point do we stop allowing treatments that people want or that doctors recommend? Sure it’s a slippery slope, but that’s the way precedent works.

  • peejz

    First of all, there are alternatives available in place of marijuana. Secondly, the SC does have business getting involved as it falls under their jurisdiction. They did not take the right of the state to allow medicinal weed, they just upheld federal drug laws. (As dumb as that sounds!)
    We need research!!!! I can’t stress it enough.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    I think this is just a misguided attack in the War on Drugs. Think about it, peejz — we’re talking about medicinal uses, here, prescribed by trained physicians, not some grand OK for recreational use. The only time in my life I’ve ever used marijuana came four or five weeks into treatment for leukemia, many, many years ago. It’s not something that I even WANTED to use. As it turns out, over the course of several months in and out of the hospital, I became addicted to a different drug — demoral — that was also given to me regularly as part of my treatment.

    As with every aspect of treatment, my docs weighed the benefits with the detriments, and, yes, there was plenty of evidence supporting their decisions to provide me with medicinal marijuana.

    Vinny’s question is a good one: “at what point do we stop allowing treatments that people want or that doctors recommend?” I’d add one more: at what point do we cause serious long-term damage to our health care system when politicians and judges determine how physicians care for their patients?

  • peejz

    RKB-First of all, let me start by saying that I am glad to see that you survived such a horrible disease. Not all are as lucky as you. Secondly, you were treated many years ago. Many years ago, they had pot rooms in hospitals. Since that time, through research, they have developed many drugs that have taken the place of pot. A doctor is bound to obey the law. A doctor within the 10 states that have pot laws can still prescribe it. A doctor outside those states can not, but they can offer many other drugs. If you feel so strongly about the benefits of pot, you might want to start encouraging the researching of this.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    I should clarify, peejz. By “many, many years ago,” I mean fifteen. In 1990, I received what many consider “medicinal marijuana” — a pill format, probably even synthetic THC. There was no smoking of anything involved.

    I don’t feel strongly about the benefits of pot. But I do feel that physicians should be able to prescribe the most effective medicine. If you’re suffering severe back pain, for example, morphine works well. Works much better than, say, aspirin. If you’re allergic to penicillin, there are alternatives to that, too, although they’re less effective.

    I don’t think it should be up to the Supreme Court to dictate whether or not physicians are able to prescribe the most effective medications.