This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 11 November 2005 (→NPOV problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:27, 11 November 2005 by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) (→NPOV problems)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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.
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 . ...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:
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)
Even if you think the issue is moot, there is debate over it. Since wikipedia is supposed to inform, but never adopt a point of view, we're adhering less to its guidelines by not including this minority voice. I think you misunderstand this movement; it isn't a few whackos in a shed. An entire national party (the Libertarians) and several major think tanks have said that it is unconstitutional. I don't want to endorse one belief or another, but I think it is very important that this voice be heard.
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.
- Also GHB is very commonly used a date-rape drug, while the page basically makes it look like a useful and helpful chemical. Many deaths have been atributed to overuse of alcohol and GHB at the same time
I think if the section on schedules was slimply reorganized and more complete, there wouldn't be a NPOV issuse. The problem in the United States with the Drug War is too few people know enough to be able to look at this problem for what it really is. --204.95.8.114 2 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
Quick thing here: Oxycodone is a schedule II~~However, Hydrocodone is not, it is a schedule III. If anyone posting on this subject had ever been prescribed either of these meds, you would know this. Schedule II ALWAYS has to have a written prescription from your Primary Care, brought into your Pharmacy, in order to be filled. Hydrocodone can be called into a Pharmacy by your Primary Care as it is a schedule III. That is one of the "little differences" between Oxycodone and Hydrocodone, as well as, one of the "little differences" between Schedule II and Schedule III meds.
- oxycodone (percocet) and hydrocodone (vicodin) are NOT the same substance, thus the diferance in scheduling. Xaosflux 05:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Another quick thing: Vicodin and Percocet ARE NOT more potent than Morphine. Morphine is one of the strongest prescription narcotics available for pain relief. Anyone who has been through any kind of long illness that somewhat debilitating, to completely debilitating, pain has been a factor, would know this. I remember a Pharmacist making the comment to me at one point, "You always know when someone has been diagnosed with Cancer that is fairly widespread--They come in with a prescription for Morphine." I asked him why that was and his response was "There really isn't anything stronger to treat the pain the Chemotherapy and the Cancer itself will cause." Personal anecdotes aside, Vicodin is the weaker of the substances and is also less addictive, therefore a Schedule III. Percocet however, is not only stonger, but much more addictive, therefore a Schedule II.
WAIT! no, just one other quick thing: i mean we ALL know that percocet is much more addictive than vicodin while all the time being much weaker than morphine (that is only administered to end-of-life cancer patients). ESPECIALLY when you don't know the strengths of said drugs. or anything other than what a totally UNprofessional pharmacist blurts out to you.
NO NO! WAIT!! this is the absolute last quick thing: how do we keep people like above from editing this EDIFICE that will in some ways define our century, our technology????
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.
References
Cleanup issues
The introduction to this article was copied from a DOJ web page. It needs a major rewrite for NPOV and tone, and needs to present the content that's appropriate to an informative encylopedia article. I've started to do that, but there's more to be done.
The arrangement of various articles about drug laws in the US seems to be a bit confused. For example, Psychotropic Substances Act (United States) is its own article, just about that legislation. But this article, which has a title of a previous piece of legislation, contains all the information about what the law is now. Maybe the "the way it is now" stuff, including the list of schedules, should be moved into its own, more general article.
I find the section which lists the various drugs on each schedule to be rather POV, because for a lot of the drugs, it lists reasons why the substance shouldn't be classified the way it is. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons both pro and con for each drug to be classified a given way, and also for and against using it, and any number of other things. Adding information from both sides here could really clutter up the lists, especially if they are expanded to be more comprehensive. I would recommend pushing out all of these details into the drugs' individual articles. Cannabis has a whole article on just its legal issues (Legal issues of cannabis), which can probably do a better job describing the current raging controversy about how it should be scheduled, not to mention all the federal/state issues, including medical marijuana issues, etc., etc., etc. -- Beland 03:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not to mention Cannabis rescheduling in the United States, which has a sidebar with its own list of scheduled substances, and Category:U.S. controlled substances law, which has subcategories that seem to form a more comprehensive list than this one. -- Beland 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)