I have read many papers and have done my research. I really don’t understand why a Marijuana user can’t smoke some Marijuana in the privacy of his own home without the fears of being arested for what he is doing.

Most comparison reports done by private and goverment funded organizations between Alcohol and Marijuana show that affected Marijuana users are acctually more coharent and are less likely to hurt them selves and others.

Alcohol is legal and peolpe use it responsibly daily. Marijuana users can do the same thing if it were legalized. Whats better anyways, something out of the dirt or something made in a factory that makes you vomit and pass out if over consumed?

Not “…Gosnell’s use…” but “..California’s use…”

Grrrrr.

This sentence should read:

“Starting from the position that the CSA’s ban onthe interstate sale of marijuana is constitutional, he posits that it is necessary to regulate the intrastate production and possession of marijuana because, otherwise, the CSA is unenforceable.”

Mathew,

OK, that’s a cogent argument against Gosnell’s careless use of the term “manufacture,” but that’s about it. You didn’t “manufacture” the apricot, but does economic activity only include manufacturing as far as the Commerce clause is concerned? I think it is not too farfetched to say that you “produced” the apricot, and production can fairly be called “economic activity.” Otherwise no type of farming, fishing, hunting, ranching, etc. would be considered economic activity, since none of them involve manufacturing. This cannot possibly be the meaning of the Commerce Clause, as huge percentage of the economic activities that the Founding Fathers would have been concerned with at the time would have been just such agricultural pursuits.

Ultimately, I am persuaded by Gosnell’s indictment of the majority opinion itself, but I think he would have done well to address Scalia’s concurrence in addition to the majority opinion. Frankly, I find Scalia’s reasoning FAR more coherent and understandable than the majority opinion (Scalia’s starting sentence about having a different “nuance” than the majority is classic). I also think Scalia’s reasoning is far less Wickard-influenced than the majority. Starting from the position that the CSA is constitutional, he posits that it is necessary to regulate the intrastate production and possession of marijuana because, otherwise, the CSA is unenforceable. Which seriously makes me wonder why Gosnell doesn’t directly address Scalia’s concurrence, because Gosnell’s point about “home-grown” vs. “pharmacy-acquired” making a difference seems directly targeted towards assuaging Scalia’s misgivings.

“The problem with marijuana (specifically Tetrahydrocannabinols) is that it is classified as a Schedule I substance under the CSA (which makes it more regulated than various forms of opium, Methamphetamine, and drugs such as Hydrocodone.”

The link you provide gives 3 tables of Schedule I drugs. The entire second table is “various forms of opium.” The most famous is, of course, heroin, but probably the most applicable is the the medical marijuana debate is morphine. Both are actually fairly easy to produce using cookbook techniques, probably far easier than crystal methamphetamine.

No doubt there is plenty we agree on, I shall work to dig some more out.

S

So I do not see the parallel. Moreover, all the other drugs he lists in the passage Steve quoted presumably are patented. I’m pretty sure marijuana is not!

Steven, it is somewhat refreshing to be on the same side of an issue with you, for a change. But being on the same side of an issue as Rehnquist and Thomas has me a bit frightened!

The Califorina law allows patients to “manufacture” (grow) controlled substances without any real oversight beyond the initial prescription and registration. They can grow as much or as little of it as they please, and do with it whatever they like. This is one of the legitimate concerns of the majority opinion, and I share it — I just don’t think it’s appropriate for Congressional legislation. It should be fixed by the state.

I share your views on the ridiculous classification of marijuana as a Class I substance. Seems to me it should be a Class IV or V, but then I know so little about it. I, too, have never smoked it, though I’ve been to enough rock concerts to know that I have almost certainly smelt the smoke.