Skip to main content

View Diary: Understanding the Right to Privacy And the Right to Choose (322 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some logic (none)
    mostly politics.

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 11:38:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The problem with that: (none)
      I would think (and I think our courts are wrong on this) that the right to privacy would trump the right of the government to regulate commerce. If you use the commerce clause as an excuse to justify laws against marijuana, then the same logic can be used to justify the regulation of selling candy.

      Why should the government control what a person does to their body, as long as they do not harm others? That is what privacy is all about.

      •  No (none)
        Compelling state interest trumps individual liberty absolutely.

        As a mater of law and as a matter of what is right in my view.

        That is part of the social contract.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 06:40:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  sorry to keep butting in on Armando... (none)
        ...and I'm not disagreeing, but just answering in a different way:

        • yes, they could regulate/ban candy commerce.  That is not the same thing as saying they can criminalize sugar in your bloodstream - quite a good analogy to MJ since your body produces cannibanoids on it's own, and glucose (by breaking down other foods).  Indeed it's the "Food and Drug Administration" and...

        • Armando is right: there needs to be a compelling state interest - the interest in abortion (if one existed) would be in protecting one citizen from another OR in regulating medical practice*; with the CSA, it's protecting citizens from those who would sell them poison - Congress can regulate that as commerce - the clause gives it to them explicitly, and can demonstrate a compelling state interest in not having thousands of meth-heads.  

        Now, the political question is just what constitutes poison - is MJ poison?  Any worse than EtOH?  The Raich opinion added several Supremes to the list of folks who've called on Congress & the DEA to re-classify.  

        *something left to the states traditionally - and Raich was about exactly this: redefining Medical MJ to not be interstate commerce at all, and therefore subject to state law.  Oregon vs. Gonzales (the assisted suicide case) is also working along exactly this vein.  The Gov't asserts their right, via the CSA, to prevent doctors from proscribing lethal doses for terminal patients.  The assert that the CSA gives them regulatory usage (vs. labelling) control.  Pharma can't manufacture and sell until they get FDA approval, and that approval includes labelling (use guidelines) which doctors are free to follow/not-follow according to their state medical governing body.  Drs. commonly cross-prescribe all sorts of drugs...the social reactionaries don't care so long as nobody can get high.  This, BTW, is also the big debate raging around Plan B...the components of which are already labelled and prescribed for other uses.  Drs. have gotten a tad nervous about cross-prescribing, though, given the DEAs new willingness to prosecute them.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site