So the Court has upheld Oregon's right-to-die case. I almost never agree with Clarence Thomas, but I do with one point he raised in his dissent. How, pray tell, is this different from the medical marijuana case decided last term? And don't give me that "legal v. illegal" argument: marijuana has been legalized for very limited purposes, and pharmaceuticals are illegal when used outside of their prescribed uses.

Maybe it's because drugs that come in nice little pills don't scare people, and drugs that come in bits of green herb do.