The Gonzales V. Raich

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

Another limitation set forth in the Constitution is that of anti-commandeering. Even though federal governments can enact law they cannot use the states as instruments of federal governance. Often overlooked, this argument used in appropriate cases to limit the Supremacy Clause, is found in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. “The anti-commandeering principle applied to the issue of medical marijuana raises the question of protecting states’ prerogative to legalize activity that Congress bans. In a case where Congress legalizes an activity that the states have banned the issue of conflict need not arise because the individual’s choice remains whether to engage in said activity or not. In the instance of Congress banning an activity legalized by the states, conflict emerges with unclear boundaries.

Since 1937, when the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, federal law has prohibited the medical and recreational use of Marijuana. This act banned its production and use in all states. In 2012, however, Colorado and Washington legalized recreational use of marijuana, becoming the first states to do so. This was a very controversial decision on the states’ part, and it created a debate between the two levels of government. The main cause was the issues of federalism and supremacy. While under the supremacy clause the federal government's law takes precedence to the state law, there is also a debate on which level of government, federal or state, should handle the issue of marijuana legalization. The complexity of federalism is shown very well here

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

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

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

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.

On December 27, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the "Commission" or "IACHR") received a petition filed by Caroline Bettinger-López, Emily J. Martin, Lenora Lapidus, Steven Macpherson Watt, and Ann Beeson. , lawyers of the American Union for Civil Liberties [1] (hereinafter, the "petitioners") against the Government of the United States. (hereinafter, the "State" or "United States"). The petition was filed in the name of Mrs. Jessica Gonzales (Lenahan), a US citizen who alleges that the police did not respond to her repeated and urgent calls over several hours reporting that the spouse from whom she was separated had taken her three minor daughters (7, 8 and 10 years old), in violation of a court order of protection

In 1996 voters in the State of California voted that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes should be legal. In November 1996 the law was put into use. Angel 's physician decided to try marijuana for her condition. The use of the medical marijuana had alleviated Angel 's pain. That being said Angel and her physician could finally relax since they had seem to find a cure.

Right after the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that it would no longer prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws (Meyer & Glover, 2009, para. 1), political windows suddenly opened for California marijuana reform advocates to push for legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. As a result, California Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act, became a ballot initiative on November 2, 2010 statewide ballot. Supporters argued that legalizing creational use of marijuana would help California to regulate the use and sale of marijuana, reduce correctional costs, redirect its court and law enforcement resources to other more serious crimes, and collect additional exercise taxes and sales taxes that would help with California’s budget shortfall. In spite of being a

Legalization of medical marijuana is a disputed issue in the United States. In 1996, California was the first state to pass the Compassionate Use Act allowing for the legal use of medicinal marijuana (Freisthler, Kepple, Sims, & Martin, 2013). Subsequently, this lead to the enactment of similar laws from 25 states allowing those with medical illnesses and chronic pain to use medicinal marijuana. The efficacy of the Compassionate Use Act can be determined via data analysis of pain management and other nontraditional benefits before and after 1996. Each state can be categorized as either fully functional, meaning medical marijuana laws are enacted, non-functional, not yet operational or in process, and cannabidiol specific.

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

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.