Assisted Suicide and the Controlled Substances Act

The first thing that struck me as odd on the SCOTUS finding is pretty much laid out by Clarence Thomas.

Justice Clarence Thomas did write a dissenting opinion, saying it was "perplexing to say the least" to find the court interpreting federal drug law narrowly in this instance when only months ago, it upheld broad federal authority to prevent states from authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

I have to say I found the conflicts fairly hypocritical. Though, not being a lawyer, I probably am not subject to the warped legal logic that surrounds this whole mess. Perplexing indeed.

I suppose the difference comes down to the fact that the CSA has Marijuana as a Schedule I substance. (See the DEA website for the list.) That is:

Schedule I

-The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

-The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

-There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

-Examples of Schedule I substances include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana, and methaqualone.

So according to the law, no matter how out dated or foolish, they have placed Marijuana on the list as a substance of no "accepted" medical use. Funny how many doctors seem to be disagreeing.

So if doctors, regulated by the state, can use drugs for an unintended purpose [death], how is it that the federal government, in this case, can regulate the states control of doctor's prescription of another drug on the CSA?

Kennedy has several statements that I find disturbing.

"The authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design," Justice Kennedy said.

Is he trying to say you need to be a doctor to understand that the use of the drugs for the purpose of causing death is outside their accepted uses? I could swear that the vast majority of drugs were created to save lives. That would define their accepted use, as death is not the reason they were created.

Scalia appears to come to the same conclusion. (and I really should read the whole article before starting to write this.)

Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, took issue with the argument that Congress could not have intended to delegate medical judgments of this sort to the attorney general. The legitimacy of physician-assisted suicide "ultimately rests, not on 'science' or 'medicine,' but on a naked value judgment," he said, adding, "It no more depends upon a 'quintessentially medical judgment' than does the legitimacy of polygamy or eugenic infanticide."

Justice Scalia said Mr. Ashcroft's action was "the most reasonable interpretation" of the statute because "virtually every relevant source of authoritative meaning confirms that the phrase 'legitimate medical purpose' does not include intentionally assisting suicide."

Then there is the issue of Ashcroft's interpretation of the CSA:

In his opinion, Justice Kennedy said that Mr. Ashcroft was claiming the "extraordinary authority" to declare as criminal actions that Congress had not designated as crimes, and that he was seeking "a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality."

But Congress had no such intent in passing the Controlled Substances Act, Justice Kennedy said. "The structure and operation of the C.S.A. presume and rely upon a functioning medical profession regulated under the states' police powers," he said, adding that "Oregon's regime is an example of the state regulation of medical practice that the C.S.A. presupposes."

This strikes me as having some logic, since most of the CSA seems to be focused on addiction. Though there is much language regarding the "legitimate medical purposes." I'm going to call this a weak argument.

I suppose I'm going to remain perplexed on this portion of the topic as well.