Super! Okay, thanks for that - so yeah, that tells me I need to "explain myself better"

These concepts are still forming, this "issue" is all of, what, seven or eight days old now....

Okay - so yeah, I wan't trying to suggest that the FDA was doing something illegal. I was just using that as an example for an argument based on "consistency" _ I mean, it's kind of a "miniature" version of the same set of concepts that are involved in anti-discrimination, escept the "Rights" and "Powers" in the latter case, stem from a slightly different section of the Constitution.

So yes, I mean, I can follow your logic, and it's "perfect" as far as it goes -

But now, cast it into a more global context. In other words, consider:

The FDA regulates many things, and it does not regulate others. Some things, it regulates more stringently than others - for instance, in the specific case of Scheduled substances, these fall both inside and outside the FDA's jurisdiction. They fall "inside" if there is a legitimate medical use (gee, there's that keyword again), but they fall "outside" because the Schedules are instituted under a completely different "philosophy", Constitutionally speaking, from the FDA. So that would be one argument -

Now, another, would be in the "nature" of the Schedules - in other words, the "mechanism" behind them. How is a drug promoted? How can it be removed? How can it be upgraded or downgraded?

Then, third, it is definitely true that all the Schedule 1 substances have "legitimate medical uses" - for instance, heroin is in the "cocktail" that's sometimes given to terminall ill patients, cocaine is still the anesthetic of choice for certain kinds of oral surgery, the hallucinogens have psychiatric uses, and marijuana -

And then there are religious exemptions, for instance, the USSC just ruled that a certain Brazilian Indian tribe has the right to import Scheduled substances into the US, distribute them, possess them, and use them, because it is an integral part of their religion.

So you see, in all these cases, there is a "conflict" - in the first, it would be "mechanistic", having to do with the equal application of the law. In the second, it would be a conflict between the government's "claims" and the opinion of the medical profession (which in this case would appear to be different, and that's why I asked the questiobn "who decides") - and then in the third case, that's the kind of conflict I'm looking for - a Constitutional conflict between either two rights, or two powers, or a right and a power (as in the example). See where I'm headed with this?

The idea is not to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about this stuff, the idea is actually to be able to do something about it. I mean, "I" can't help in the specific case of Los Angeles (other than showing up at a protest or something, and I enerally try to be a little smarter than that when it comes to the "implementation" of politics) - but I'm a tenacious m/f when it comes to stuff like this, and I have no doubt that the feds are going to end up wishing they hadn't inadvertently touched upon my life in this unwanted manner.

But be that as it may - so, I'm not sure what argument I would make "just now", if I had to go before the Supreme Court "tomorrow", and besides, if if were that easy, as you say (where anyone could just sue anytime for any reason), then I have no doubt that NORML or someone like that would have done it a long time ago.

No, you really need a specific case, and furthermore, it has to be so "interesting" Constitutionally, that the Supreme Court is going to want to hear it.

This is going to take some careful thought. It's not something I can be definitive on "today or tomorrow".

So, your question was, how does this all tie in with the Tenth? Well, that was kinda the "low hanging fruit" in the Constitution, I mean, the first thing I did when all this happened (or, maybe the second or third thing), was to whip out my little pocket copy of the Constitution and start reading again, 'cause I was like, "hey, wait a minute, this it wrong - something's wrong and I want to find out what it is" -

So the next thing I know, I'm wondering what the hell "general powers" means - 'cause the darn Court has used that as an excuse for anything and everything, and so this question of who decides is very important -

I mean, "who decides" what's in the general welfare?

You'll probably say "the Courts", but thiink about it - they don't really, do they? They only get cases "after the fact", and then it's only to say whether the government does or does not have a certain Power -

So unless they're willing to step up to the plate in this regard, what happens "de facto" is they're passing that power on to the "rest" of government - as you say, primarily the legislative branch. But what are they saying then, really, when they're doing that? Basically they're opening up the "entire" spectrum of law, to a popular definition of "general welfare" -

So if this "usage" of the general welfare clause is correct, then what ends up happening is that the Court only ends up ruling on specific laws that are thought to be exceptions to "general welfare" - and that is exactly what we've seen in the last hunred fifty years or so, yes?

So, like, if tomorrow America suddenly became racist again (just to pull a silly example out of a hat), and We the People suddenly started passing laws that discriminate against... I don't know, Eskimos..... then the only reason the Court would ever get (or hear) the case, would be if it thought that there was a conflict between the "Power" of the government to address the general welfare (which in this case, has been delegated directly to the people via the legislative mechanism, especially in those States that have referenda), and the Rights of Eskimos to be treated equally under the law.

So, it is possible (remotely, but possible), that one could even make an "equal protection" argument in this case, because pot smokers are citizens, they work, they pay taxes, they vote, they serve on juries -

So the "public interest" has to do with the "individual interest" of the pot smoking citizenry, balanced against the "individual interests" of whatever people don't want them smoking pot -

See what I mean? You have to force the Courst to look at it top-down in this manner, otherwise they'll get away with looking at it bottom-up, and then you're screwed before you even start.

Anyway, that's where I'm at "so far", after eight days. I have all kinds of pokers in the fire on this one, unfortunately I don't have "very" much time to devote to it just now, but maybe after I get done with this next contract I can kick back for a while and consider issues like this -

'Cause I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'm going to let the feds regulate my personal medical treatment. Not in my backyard. That'll never happen as long as I'm alive (so by definition then, it'll "never happen" ).

You know, I don't think it's the "intent" of the law to make criminals our of sick people who need medical treatment. People have to do what they have to do, in these cases - I mean, some cancer patients go across the border to get cheaper drugs in Canada, and that whole things has taken a pretty interesting legal course, and some people are so bad they actually want to kill themselves, and that whole thing also has an interesting legal history, and then some people happen to want to use a controlled substance, and that decision should be up to the doctor, and not the government.

After all, it is the doctor who is supposed to decide what is "legitimate medical use" - I mean, when the government does this, they have to hire a panel of doctors, and when they want to find out whether a drug is ready for distribution they ask the doctors, and when they want to know what a drug is "good for", they ask the doctors -

So, who's been asking the doctors about the pot laws lately? Anyone?

And "lately" would be an interesting concept too - sunset provisions and all that - and a final historical note: note that they actually had to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol.