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.
Unquestionably, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) argues “[…] the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption” (Morse et. al. v. Frederick, 2006, p. 1). This argument from Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) demonstrates that court recognized it was a First Amendment violation on the school. However, Morse et. al. v. Frederick (2006) provides the decision from the Supreme Court stating “[…]
…show more content…
Additionally, a research question that can open up future areas of inquiry is to see if reforming the drug policies in the United States would help reduce the number of illegal drug use. Lastly, it does open the topic that if the United States does change the drug policies what would it look like, would it be similar to other countries drug policies? Is there a lesser sentences for drug offenders than the mandatory minimum that the United States already
The two major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, took opposing stances surrounding the use of medical marijuana at the time. To demonstrate, the Clinton Administration’s (a Democratic president) stance about its use was that the Controlled Substances Act, the act that was integral to Raich and Monson’s court case, did not apply to states that allowed medical marijuana, such as California (Rosenbaum, 2005). In contrast, the Bush Administration (a Republican president) took a position stating that any possession of marijuana was illegal under the CSA (Rosenbaum, 2005). This shows that the two major parties differed greatly on this issue at the time.
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
Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.
Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of
Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his
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.
In the case Morse Vs. Frederick, a supreme court case that questioned the first amendment, the main argument set out by Frederick was that the school’s principal, Morse, was that Morse violated Fredericks first amendment right.
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
First Amendment protections are the most essential rights ensured to Americans; however, they are not absolute. The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court has never taken the stance that these protections are assured in all conditions. School speech is one such area, since the decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Court has been willing to constrain the fairly extensive Tinker holding requiring a school to demonstrate that a student’s speech is a material and substantial disruption in order to curtail student’s First Amendment rights. The Court, in each instance since the Tinker case, has restricted Tinker as opposed to applying it as drafted. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Court created an exception
The case of Morse et al. v. Frederick was argued by the Supreme Court in 2007. This was a First Amendment case, centered on the basic right of freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The facts that contributed to the issue took place during a High School assembly event. A group of students had displayed a banner that read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” The High School Principal (Morse) saw this as an illegal drug reference, and was responsible for eliminating such references as outlined in the school’s policy. That being taken into consideration, Principal Morse promptly demanded the students to take down banner, upon which one student who brought the banner (Frederick) refused. Principal Morse confiscated the banner and additionally suspended Frederick from school. The school superintendent and the school board both supported the suspension by Principal Morse, under the premise that Frederick was suspended for violation of school policy which occurred when the words that were displayed on his banner supported illegal drug use.
When supreme court was deciding on the case of Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) there were two previous cases that were cited which where Tinker v. Des Moines Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). In the supreme court case between the Des Moines school district and a student by the name of Mary Tinker, both the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment were utilized as a means to relieve a dispute of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. Three students that were attending a public school in Des Moines wore black armbands around their biceps as a peaceful protest against the Vietnam war. The students were suspended from school and through the appeals process, this case
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech..." The Supreme Court determined that free speech does in fact have limits. For years the first amendment only applied to the federal government, that was later changed in 1925 in the 'Gitlow v. New York' court case. The Supreme Court said that this applied to other levels of government which included public schools. 44 years later in 'Tinker v. Des Moines' The Supreme Court ruled that if a student "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others" that the First Amendment does not protect it. Then in 2007 in the 'Morse v. Frederick' case, the
Over the past few years, the issue of the legalization of marijuana has become a very controversial topic. When confronted with the issue, it feels almost instinctive to feel as though marijuana should forever be illegal. However, when the issue is really dissected and thought about, it becomes apparent that ther
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 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”