You Pick Some, You Choose Some
As it happened, the first lunch seminar for students admitted to the joint degree program was on the same day as the first Constitutional Law class.
In the former, we discussed the ethics of gene patenting,* and how the United States, unlike Europe, does not provide for objection to patents on the grounds of “public morality”.
In the latter, we discussed Congress’ use of the interstate commerce clause to justify a federal law against medical marijuana.
Until this accidental juxtaposition, I’d never thought to compare these issues. But how interesting, that in one case our legal system should be so leery of taking moral concerns into account, yet in the other is perfectly willing– indeed, eager– to stretch legal concepts quite far** in order to regulate morality.
*~*~*
* Specifically, we met with the author of the study addressed in this article– which I now remember having read when it came out (It’s always a treat to have the chance to get a fuller perspective on people and issues in the media). And thanks to this experience, I’ve now been pointed to a letter in Science in which the authors refute one of the common criticisms that appears at the end of the Economist’s account. ((Basically, the authors were well-aware of the USPTO-guideline change that occurred in 1999; and assert that therefore the genre of patents they chose to analyze did not include any of the problematic kind that led to the policy alteration))
** The ground for invoking the Interstate Commerce Clause is that patients growing medical marijuana for their own use MIGHT sell it to persons in other states. Might? Methinks there must be some situation out there, involving permitted use of controlled substances, where application of a standard of _mere possibility_ of misuse to justify Congress stepping in to ban the activity would be clearly absurd and unthinkable. (Research on diseases that could conceivably be used by terrorists? I’m not immediately coming up with an equivalent involving the activities of private individuals…)
Copying movies on VCRs is your example for footnote 2. IIRC, The media companies tried to get VCRs banned for that reason, and the attempt was struck down because the “potential” misuse was sufficient to ban the non-illegal uses. (The argument was used a lot in the Napster case, I think?)
Comment by pjm — September 10, 2005 @ 6:48 am
Thanks– a much better parallel than I was able to come up with.
I suppose the counterargument would be that violation of IP rights is less corrosive to (the well-being and moral fiber of) society than the drug trade– though then again, RIAA & co are certainly treating the former as if the two are equally severe (what with creating Boy Scout merit badges for not infringing copyright, etc..)
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2005 @ 8:20 am