The Case Of Gonzalez Vs. Raich

There were several appearances in court for this case, which resulted in three rulings, the last one being in the Supreme Court. The Dallas Texas court threw out the case on the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no right to sue. Then Roe's lawyers went to their first appeals court, which ruled on June 17, 1970 that the Does had no right to sue but Jane Roe and Dr. Hallford had a reasonable case with the right to sue.

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 questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

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.

Let’s talk about the events that led up to the court case being filed. The case involved an unmarried pregnant woman, born Norma Leah Nelson on September 22, 1947, in the bayou country of Lettesworth, Louisiana who was at the time identified only as Jane Roe in order to maintain her anonymity but who has since publicly identified herself as Norma McCorvey. McCorvey, a resident of Texas, wanted to have an abortion, but the existing state law prevented her from doing so. She filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of herself and all other pregnant women. The suit sought to have the Texas abortion law declared unconstitutional

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.

Disadvantages of medical marijuana can range from side effects with medications, increased psychosis, and public health issues. In addition, those in California have to be residents to obtain a medical marijuana identification card. In order to qualify for a medical marijuana identification card, one has to have a debilitating medical condition. According to Cohen (2010), a debilitating condition means: cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for such conditions. The identification card also calls for physicians to comply with these regulations. The physician must have a good standing license to practice in California, take responsibility of the patient's care, disclose a medical examination on the patient beforehand, document the serious medical condition and how medical marijuana is necessary, and have the patient sign consent and copies of his or hers medical records (California Medical Association, 2011). Physicians also have to look at the health risk that their patient might face if prescribed medicinal marijuana. According to the California Medical Association, 9% of adults become addicted to cannabis. This can lead to cognitive deficits that can range from impaired memory to the inability to learn. This article also indicated that long-term use can increase risk of developing schizophrenia due to

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.

Jerome P. Kassirer, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine stated in an editorial "Thousands of patients with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases report they have obtained striking relief from these devastating symptoms by smoking marijuana. The alleviation of distress can be so striking that some patients and their families have been willing to risk a jail term to obtain or grown marijuana" (Fackelmann, 1997). Marijuana continues to prove its medicinal properties, especially in pain management. But patients have to break the law in order to obtain relief. That's not right.

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

This increased government revenue could be seen as a major advantage in legalising marijuana where revenue could be used for increase expenditure in defence, education and health.

One way to help pay for roads, hospitals, and bridges without raising taxes to an absurd rate for everyone is to legalize marijuana. These are only just some of the crucial benefits that states can take advantage of. Along with medicinal benefits, legalizing marijuana would generate massive revenue for each state without having a negative effect on crime. In fact it could actually have a positive effect on crime rates. Many claim that legalizing marijuana for recreational use could have many negative effects such as increase in crime or increase in use of more hardcore drugs. However studies conducted in both these areas show a correlation between crime and exposure to hardcore drugs such as cocaine.

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.

Contrary to popular belief, policy debates surrounding medical marijuana are not new, Congress and the Supreme Court have discussed the issue for decades. After the hippie-movement in the 1960s publicized marijuana and its potential benefits, medical marijuana became a popular concept. Medical Marijuana first appeared in courts in 1976 (although the government had already started funding cannabis research (Zielinski, 2001). In this case the Supreme Court ruled that according to the Common Law Doctrine of Necessity, glaucoma patient Robert Randall could legally grow medical marijuana, which he claims kept him from becoming blind (Zielinski, 2001).