Dr Cracker Case Study

First, from 1900 to 1940, marijuana, including opium and cocaine were considered part of everyday drugs. As time went on, the U.S. cracked down on crack and opium, eventually outlawing them, but continued to be very “loose” with the use of marijuana. Hoxter a weed smuggler explains how he began in the 1960’s trying weed and years later saw himself unloading four hundred pounds of pot in Vancouver. The story of this man ends in his isolation and argument of why he couldn’t smoke weed even if he stopped selling? He asked a parole officer and she didn’t know what to respond. It is true what Hoxter states, fifty years ago alcohol was illegal and now it’s not, was it bad then? Will weed be legalized? And will the conflicts have been in vain? (Schou 8). Around the late 90’s and early 2000’s, scientific studies started to produce jaw-dropping results. Scientists started to discover that marijuana can significantly help people who have become ill. Medical Marijuana has been tested to help people with cataracts, cancer and severe depression (Zeese 1999). With this new worldwide discovery, the argument about medical marijuana ignited. States wanted to only make medical marijuana legal so it may help sick people, but the government did not want any form of marijuana legal. The law that was known throughout the United States was any form of marijuana was illegal. But now with this new discovery, doctors in states across the country want the

Many studies have shown that marijuana can be an effective treatment for pain, nausea, multiple sclerosis, vomiting associated with chemotherapy, and extensive weight loss associated with AIDS. It can be used by itself as a treatment or it can aid in decreasing the side effects of the specified treatment (Clark). A widely known use of marijuana is to improve decreased appetite that is a result of some cancer treatments. (I.e. chemo or radiation). In 1996 the organization WAMM, “Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana” was founded. The members are low income patients with life-threatening illnesses. This group knew the benefits that marijuana had and wanted to fight for their right to make it available to them. The members grew their own marijuana, and despite ongoing threats from the federal government, WAMM eventually secured a “federal injunction” that protected the group from further interference. For a year WAMM had the only fully legal marijuana garden (Chapkis). The acts performed by this group prove that there is a use for marijuana and people will go to great lengths to get what they need to help them during their healing processes. According to Judge Francis L. Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, evidence shows that marijuana is capable of safely relieving the distress of people with illnesses and it would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those who suffer and the benefits of this substance

There currently exists a great debate concerning Legalization of marijuana. Many people are against the idea, but there are a number of people who fight for the idea to legalize Marijuana. The people that try to Legalize Marijuana use two major arguments in their effort to have marijuana legalized. First, which is by far the biggest argument is that marijuana has a significant medical use. The second is that marijuana does not cause harm to those that smoke it. Both of these arguments can be easily discounted by the numerous studies that have been done on the effects of marijuana both medicinal and recreational. Many well-intentioned leaders and members of the public have been misled by the well financed and organized pro-drug

In 1996, the state of California passed the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized the use of medical marijuana. California was one of the few states at the time to legalize the use of medical marijuana, while the federal law upholds its authority to restrict citizens from using marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act, which is a law enacted by Congress to regulate the use of marijuana. Nine years later, the Supreme Court is presented the case of Gonzales v. Raich. Angela Raich, who suffered from a serious illness, decided to grow her own medical marijuana for personal use. Raich actions were legal in the eyes of California, while on a federal level the country did not approve of the idea or use of

Gonzales v. Raich was a landmark case which determined the extent that Congress could regulate marijuana usage in California. More precisely, the case involves deliberation between the constitutionality of the Compassionate Use Act, voted on by the state of California in 1996, and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), passed by Congress in 1970. Does the CSA, a policy which permits the regulation of certain drugs and chemicals by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), exceed the regulations set under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Does the Compassionate Use Act, which allows for the use of medical marijuana in California, protect citizen’s rights to use and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes? The decision made by the Supreme Court would spark debate over these questions as well as similar topics such as federal abuse of power, doctor patient confidentiality, and the decriminalization of marijuana across America. In my paper, I will cover the events and influences leading up to the Supreme Court’s official decision, the significance of the outcome, and the questions and issues brought up in the aftermath of Gonzales v. Raich.

The high ruling of the case decided that she was guilty until further pressed when the Ninth circuit, then ruled that the medicinal use of marijuana did not substantially affect intrastate commerce and that Congress had no ruling in this case. I agree with the ending decision of the case. It is my opinion that if a physician prescribes a prescription that is helping cure the problem, then it should be the patients right to take these actions to survive.

The Supreme Court later used the Wickard v. Filburn decision to justify the Gonzales v. Raich case. Gonzales v. Raich was a case regarding the 1996 California law, Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court where the decision was made that federal government had every right to regulate the activities of an individual if said activities had the “possibility” of affecting the national market of the good; therefor falling under the notion of interstate commerce. This is a horrifying concept because the federal government now has the power to regulate an individual citizen within a state and can shut down their operations if the federal government perceives there to be viable threat to interstate commerce. With all this being said, does the owner of the dispensary have the legal right and protection to continue operating his business. According to the federal government he does

After reading Chapter 16 I came to the conclusion that In Raich v. Ashcroft, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the medical use of marijuana does not have any direct or obvious effect on interstate commerce; however, the U.S. Supreme Court beg to differ, the Supreme Court felt like that medical marijuana would have an effect on the interstate market for marijuana, so in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court (which wasn’t right but they had the power to do so). In addition, the federal government had the power to prohibit the use of medical marijuana. The federal law enforcement is targeting individuals who seem clearly to be using marijuana for purposes other than medical treatment.

The court’s decision regarding Gonzales v. Raich dealt closely with the Controlled Substances Act and how the DEA could handle certain events dealing with marijuana. In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act which in turn legalized marijuana for medicinal use. However, California's law clashed with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, an assembly of medical marijuana consumers sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.

“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis, marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.” Francis Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, stated. Marijuana was thought of as a drug that was enormously harmful to the user’s health and well-being, but the truth about it is that if used correctly, marijuana has the ability to alleviate a variety of medical conditions, some that were thought to be “untreatable.” An immense amount of research and evidence has proven repeatedly that marijuana is able to treat many problems that plague much of our nation. Medical marijuana needs to legalization across the United States because of its ability to aid those with respiratory issues, to assuage one’s struggle with mental disorders, and it has a profound ability to mitigate the side effects often seen with people who are burdened with cancer.

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was passed by California voters which legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. However, the California law violated the established federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned the possession of marijuana. After the DEA seized prescribed marijuana from the home of a doctor’s patient, a collection of medical marijuana users came together and sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in a federal district court. The two leading individuals, Angel Raich and Diane Monson sued the federal government on the grounds of declaratory relief and injunction in October of 2002 to stop the government from violating their right to produce and use medical marijuana. Attorney Randy Barnett defended

Illegal drug to be hidden or legal pharmaceutical can be argued until the end of time while there will always be some who disagree, it 's human nature. Truly it is hard to remove the programmed thoughts that still remain in our culture that marijuana will always be the reefer madness culprit of the past. Yet the actual benefits need to be given a chance. Why not? If it is something that can help even one person should the public not at least think about it? So while the arguments for both sides remain firm in their belief of the harms and the cures of marijuana, we as an educated society need to follow through with the proper research.

She states that as a result of high pricing, the consumption of marijuana will be lowered. I also agree with Pacula but I would have to make the same comment I did to the article from Subritzky. I believe this method will be used for less frequent users who are not dependent on the drug, and know the consequence that can come from buying from an illicit supplier. Both of these authors make great points but I believe they need to come together and show both spectrums of the users from hardcore, frequent and

The Drug Enforcement Administration situations on fighting to legalize “medical” marijuana are based on two proposals: the scientific field views marijuana as a treatment while the DEA targets sick and dying people using the drug. Neither suggestion is true, science proved it is not medicine and it is not safe to use. The DEA targets on criminal trafficking and not the sick and dying. In 1970 congress authorized laws against marijuana based on that there is no logically proven medical value. Like the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for authorizing drugs safe an effective medicine has declined to approve smoked marijuana for any circumstance or disease.

This organization was the first in the country to be granted non-profit status. By 1937, marijuana had been classified as a narcotic by all states. It wasn?t until 1972 that there was a call for the decriminalization of marijuana by the government. The American Medical Association and the National Council of Churches endorsed the decriminalization of marijuana. One must believe that support from an organization with such influence in the medical field that marijuana must have some medicinal purpose. In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, which legalized possession of marijuana for patients with a doctor?s recommendation who are suffering from AIDS, cancer, Glaucoma, and other illnesses. In September of 2000, federal Judge William Alsup of the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled that the government could not punish doctors who recommend the benefits of marijuana to their patients. This verdict gave ill people a sign of hope that they will be able to take whatever medication necessary, even marijuana, to treat their sicknesses.