Gonzales Vs Raich Summary

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

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

The legalization of marijuana has been a hot topic in the media for many years now. There is a major divide in those who believe it should be legal, those who do not, and those who think it could be legal with modifications on the usage. The number of those who support the legalization of marijuana is on the rise with nearly 50% supporting recreational marijuana legalization, and 81% supporting marijuana legalization for medical treatment as of 2015 ("Public Support for Marijuana Legalization, 2015”). Marijuana should be legalized on a federal level because it is safer than alcohol, it will increase the economy, and there is an unfair criminalization of marijuana.

The topic of legalizing recreational marijuana in the United States has been a very controversial one. States such as Colorado and Washington have gone on the offensive and have legalized recreational marijuana and have enjoyed the high revenues brought in from cannabis sale. On the other hand other states have kept low profiles because they are wary of the possible negative outcomes of legalizing recreational marijuana and are using the states of Colorado and Washington as guinea pigs to see what their next course of action on this controversial topic should be. This is not only a highly debated topic among politicians, but also by the people. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center 52% of Americans

Marijuana is a drug that is an ongoing issue in the United States for many years debating about whether it should be legal, so in 2010 the state of California proposed the “Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act” for voters to vote on which would make marijuana illegal. Charles Stimson, a former assistant U.S. Attorney specializing in crime, had strong opinions about what he thought about the issue and was paid to write an article by the Heritage Foundation where he could voice his opinion about legalized marijuana. In his article “Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No,” Charles Stimson tries to persuade his audience, voters of California, that they should vote against legalized marijuana. He tries to persuade his audience

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.

As previous mentioned the tenth amendment protects state power to govern themselves so long as that governance does not defy the Constitution. In the article, “Morality Policy and Federalism: Innovation, Diffusion and Limits” by Robyn Hollander and Haig Patapan, they discuss if federalism supports and allows for innovation and diffusion. In the journal, they discuss how the case of Gonzales v. Raich, which was a case where two women with severe illness were growing marijuana and challenged the DEA agents who had destroyed their plants in 2005 during a search, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DEA agents based on the fact these women may, while it not their original intention, sell the marijuana they have grown, which could go to other

Gonzales v. Carhart was a supreme court case that was arguing on whether there should be partial birth abortion. I do not agree with abortion anyway, let alone partial birth. The two main people involved in the case, were Alberto R. Gonzales and Leroy Carhart. Gonzales was the petitioner who brought the case to the court and Carhart was the respondent. Gonzales wanted to overturn the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which was basically an act saying partial-birth abortion is not allowed.

Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressed of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug. Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and

Undoubtedly, O. Hayden Griffin III (2013) argues “[…] the Supreme Court has had a profound effect on drug policy through the institution’s interpretation of federal drug legislation, which ostensibly will continue into the future” (O. Hayden Griffin III, 2013, p.677). O. Hayden Griffin III (2013) demonstrates that the drug policy in the United States is based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of current drug legislation. Additionally, O. Hayden Griffin III (2013) made an argument regarding marijuana stating “despite the decision of the Office of the Attorney General, federal legislation regarding marijuana has not been altered and […] change in presidential administration could result in a change in policy” (O. Hayden Griffin III, 2013, p.676). Furthermore, O. Hayden Griffin III (2013) demonstrates that in the future the possibly of having marijuana policies be altered by the next presidential administration.

Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While

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 our society, especially in recent times, the topic of interest for many is the highly stigmatized drug marijuana. Marijuana is currently under national debate on whether it should be legalized on a federal level. A myriad of news and media outlets report that marijuana is legal in multiple states for numerous reasons, but the federal government still fails to legalize it as of now. To provide insight, marijuana also referred to as cannabis, is derived from the leaves and flowers of the hemp plant and can be used in many ways—smoking, edibles (food or drink), vaporizing, tinctures, ingestible oils, topical lotions or balms, and dabbing (delivers a higher THC in the form of hash oil, wax, or shatter). THC and CBD are called cannabinoids, which are the major chemicals in marijuana that assist the user for medical purposes or recreationally. As stated by Americans for Safe Access (ASA), “The federal government claims that marijuana is not medicine and in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes… States have recognized marijuana’s medical value” (Americans for Safe Access). Furthermore, marijuana is used recreationally and medicinally in some states and the District of Columbia under state specific laws. Although the use of cannabis is legal in certain states, in the federal government’s eyes, marijuana use,

Legalization of marijuana is one of the most controversial topics in American society today. Surveys done by the US Government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive showed that 95 million Americans have used marijuana. There are two opposing sides that have strong stances on whether it should become legal or should remain illegal. We have one side that is anti-marijuana and the other is pro-marijuana. Each side provides valid and strong arguments supporting their views. The purpose of this paper is to carefully examine each opposing side and try to find some way to come to a compromise.

The main controversy between legalizing drugs is that one side believes it benefits humans bodily and materialistically, but it conflicts with the immense side effects that are dangerous to society and the human mind. Police also must abide by the fourth amendment of no illegal search and seizure, but those against legalization believe that under circumstance that since drugs such as marijuana “has no medical use and does more harm to the body”