"Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum." So said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer yesterday while listening to arguments in the medical-marijuana case. (The Californian who brought the case is represented by Randy Barnett. See this.)

In other words, for Breyer medical oppression by an elite is preferable to medical oppression by the mob. Why Justice Breyer and virtually everyone else refuse to consider the alternative of medicine by individual choice is the big question of our time. When will the right of self-medication be held equal to the right of self-education? When will we be free to ingest whatever we want, just as we may read whatever we want?

On federalist grounds the decision ought to go to the defendant, which is how Barnett argued. (The plaintiff is Attorney General John Ashcroft.) But let's not be lulled into thinking that medical-marijuana laws advance liberty. There's a big difference between empowering doctors and liberating individuals. Despite appearances, this is not a step in the right direction.

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/30/2004

Oh, I get it now. I see.

Sheldon Richman - 11/30/2004

Aeon--

I said the decision ought to go to Raich on federalist grounds. The step in the wrong direction to which I referred is the medicalization of marijuana (i.e., empowerment of physicians). It doesn't follow from my claim that the feds should be allowed to interfere with the states. There are two issues here. What we should working for is this: states' "rights" and then repeal of prohibition state by state--if we can't get repeal at the central level.

Aeon J. Skoble - 11/30/2004

"this is not a step in the right direction."
Sheldon, I see your point, but it's surely a step in the _wrong_ direction if the Gov't prevails over Randy's arguments: thousands of people like Raich will continue to suffer needlessly, and what kight represent a rollback in federal regulatory power will instead turn out to be yet another _expansion_ of federal regulatory power.