[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm surprised no one's talked about this.

As much as I support the right, and the right of states to make the decission, I fear the feds might have a good case. As long as the blasted Controled Substances Act exists, this probably falls under federal jurisdiction.

And I don't think the scope of the case is broad enough to say either of the 2 things I'd really like to see said. The first is, "Controlled Substances Act be damned, this is clearly not under the purvey of Constitutionally granted federal powers and therefore is the state's choice." The other is, "Screw the CSA, we're calling it invalid here and now."

The second is clearly not an option, that's not the question before the court. I have a dim hope that the first might happen. But, sadly, if they rule it as, "Based on the existence of the CSA, the federal government has a right to enforce restrictions," I can't really say I can argue with that.

The best I hope for right now is an opinion, like the recent marijuana opinon, that says, "Based on existing law, we have to side with the feds...BUT, we really think someone needs to get to repealing that stupid CSA." Unsatisfying, but it'd be something.

Of course my other pie-in-the-sky hope is that the Court does shoot down the Oregon right to die act based on the Controlled Substances Act, sparking action to either legislatively repeal the CSA, or get a case before the court that would put the Constitutional validity of the CSA into the scope. It's so entrenched that I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be nice.