Talk:Controlled Substances Act
|
|
How many kinds of aerosol cans use nitrous oxide as a propellant? Whipped cream uses it because of its very high lipid solubility; it readily dissolves in the cream under pressure in the can. (N2O's utility as an anesthetic is also due to its lipid solubility.) When the cream is released from the can, the nitrous oxide comes out of solution and produces a foam.
I don't see how N2O would be a useful propellant in other applications where its lipid solubility is not relevant. In fact I believe the standard aerosol propellant (after freon was banned) is propane.
It might be worth pointing out that the nitrous oxide widely used as an oxidizer in racing and hybrid amateur rocketry is usually denatured with ~100 ppm sulfur dioxide to discourage abuse by inhalation.
I am not sure that cocaine has a medical use.
| Contents |
Why Schedule?
Does anyone know why the categories are called Schedules? Why not "class", for example?
Just wanted to say that cocaine DOES have a medical use as a local anaesthetic. Although it is an archaic medicine to use in such a case, it is still regarded as legitimate, and cocaine hydrochloride is listed in the Physician's Desk Reference.
Constitutionality
Is the CSA constitutional? We had to amend the Constitution to institute alcohol prohibition. Why is an amendment not required for drug prohibition? I know the Cato Institute has said it's unconstitutional. That debate might be a good thing to include in the article, although sadly, the mainstream doesn't seem to care whether any federal programs are constitutional or not. Rad Racer 13:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Answer: Even if the CSA is unconstitutional on its face, it is still technically constitutional because of the various international drug treaties that we are a signatory to. According to the Consitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, constitutionality notwithstanding.
- Can a treaty supersede the Constitution? In that case, the Senate could ratify a treaty saying all citizens are required to practice Islam, and it would be constitutional. That can't be correct. See [1] (http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh10.htm). ...A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that--as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights--the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it. It seems that if it conflicts with the Bill of Rights, then it is not binding. See also Reid v. Covert. Rad Racer | Talk 04:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my opinon the constitutionality paragraph is POV. Specifically the part about prohibitionists having the respect to seek an ammendment.
Different Answer: The reason that prohibition was put into the constitution was because it had already been adopted by two-thirds of the states before it became an ammendment. So when it was proposed in congress, it got somewhat automatic ratification. When it got sent to the state legislatures, two-thirds of the states already had prohibition on the books, and therefore ratified the ammendment. Once it became an ammendment though, only another ammendment could nullify it.
As to the part about treaties, they are not the law of the land. According to the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, 2nd Clause:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President has the authority to make treaties on behalf of the United States, but to become law, they must be ratified by two-thirds senate majority. If the treaty is ratified, it becomes United States Law, and is subject to review by the Supreme Court. In the case of a hypothetical treaty with Iran involving the manditory practice of Islam, it would take approximately six seconds for the state of Louisiana to file suit against the United States, in which case the Supreme Court would have origional juridiction, and the second ammendment would then be enforced.
It should be noted that as far as I can tell, there is no mention of the place of ratified treaties in the hierarchy of laws. All of the legal information I got for this response was read from the constitution itself, and some things I learned in a constitutional law class in high school. If you refer to the constitution, you can find the same information that I have provided.DrXenocide
I bring your attention to Article VI of the Constitution, which states in part:
"...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;..."
So all treaties ARE the supreme law in the land, and all judges are bound by them.
The full text of that particular clause reading "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Although not outright stating it, this clause implies at least some hierarchy to the laws. If anything, it is misleading to state that treaties ARE the supreme law in the land. It is more accurate to state that treaties are PART of the supreme law.
- Ratified treaties have the same force and effect of federal statutes. The constitution is the supreme authority, and no statute or treaty can conflict with it. Jrkarp 05:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, since the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly said that the CSA is constitutional as a valid exercise of federal power under the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause, I think that the constitutionality issue is pretty much moot. Jrkarp 05:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NPOV problems
A lot of this article has a very pro-legalization slant. Most of the discussion of schedule 1 drugs looks like nothing more than apologetics. I know very little about drugs, illegal or otherwise, but it'd be nice if someone who does would try to correct this... Isomorphic 15:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not pro-legalization. The reason there are apologetics is because many of the Schedule I drugs were placed there capriciously, against the advice of their own administrative law judges. Both Ecstasy and marijuana are in Schedule I, despite the fact that Administrative Law Judges have determined that they should be in a lesser schedule, such as 2 or 3. There are many drugs that have accepted medical uses, yet are placed in Schedule I because of politics. Heroin, for example, is nothing special in the world of opiates. True, it is twice as potent as morphine, but hydrocodone and oxycodone are even more potent, and they are in Schedule II and commonly sold as Vicodin and Percocet. Other than the increased potency, the pharmacology of heroin is identical to that of other medically accepted opiates. The reasons heroin is in Schedule I have no scientific basis. It is only because heroin has a reputation as a street drug that it is treated differently.
- Heroin also doesn't have pharmaceutical industry backers. 205.217.105.2 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Heroin But isn't heroin also a more common street drug than Hydrocodone and Oxycodone? The strength of the drug isn't the only factor at play in which schedule it's placed into.
Re:Re:Heroin That is not correct. Illicit use of hydrocodone and oxycodone is much more prevalent than heroin use.
Medicinal Uses of Cocaine
Just FYI -- Cocaine is commonly used in Dentistry and Eye Surgery as well as other forms of surgery and pediatric wound repair where a mild topical anaesthesia is required, though the efficacy and risk of this medical use has recently come into question. Response: Cocaine, usually in a 4% aqueous solution, is available in most operating rooms in the USA. I have never seen it used for eye surgery nor for dentistry, but it is commonly applied in the nose before a surgical or anesthetic procedure to produce anesthesia and shrink superficial blood vessels and minimize bleeding.
Medicinal Uses of Cocaine
In the operating room, cocaine is most commonly used as a pre-emptive anesthetic (before incision) and as a measure to reduce intra-operative bleeding (vaso-constrictor). It comes in 5cc bottles as a green liquid at 4% concentration and are usually soaked on cottonoid's and placed in the nose before septoplasties, sinus surgery (F.E.S.S.), and rhinoplasties.
Also, it was previously used in dentistry in a similar solution to numb gums or cheek, but the prectice has fallen out of use.