Clearing the air: what the latest Supreme Court decision regarding medical marijuana really means.
نویسندگان
چکیده
handed down its 6-3 decision against Angel Raich and Diane Monson.1 The Court ruled that the federal government can prohibit even intrastate and noncommercial marijuana possession and cultivation under the rubric of “interstate commerce.” In the prior Supreme Court ruling, United States vs. the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative,2 the Court ruled that “medical necessity” is not a legal defense for the possession, manufacture, or distribution of marijuana, and that the federal law classifying marijuana as illegal has no exemption for ill patients. Although the latest decision did not address medical necessity or due process arguments, Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, did add at the end of Section I, “The case is made difficult by respondents’ strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.”3 One week after the Supreme Court ruling, the US House of Representatives rejected an amendment prohibiting the federal government from undermining state medical marijuana laws. However, the bill received 13 more votes than last year, indicating growing support for patients. The Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent defeat in Congress brought much angst to many ill people currently using medical marijuana. Fortunately, for those living in states that allow the use of medical marijuana, this ruling does not overturn state law. Nearly all of the roughly 750,000 annual marijuana arrests in the United States are made by state and local officials. States are not required to have laws that are identical to federal law nor are they required to enforce federal laws. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer plainly stated this in a recent statement from his office: “The federal government cannot force state officials to enforce federal laws.”4 Although federal authorities retain the power to target patients and providers, state lawmakers should redouble their efforts to move forward with legislation to protect patients from arrest and jail. In addition, states without medical marijuana laws are still free to enact them. Following the
منابع مشابه
LA Legally Speaking Pamela Samuelson Did MGM Really Win
M GM’s media blitz has given the impression that the entertainment industry won an overwhelming and broad victory against peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing and file-sharing technologies when the Supreme Court announced its decision in the MGM v. Grokster at the end of June. MGM can, of course, point to the 9-0 vote that vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Grokster could not ...
متن کاملAssisted reproductive technologies and the Constitution.
This Article discusses potential policies regarding assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The initial question is whether ARTs should be viewed as private matters or as issues that affect overall social good. The author explains that this question may be answered by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the principles of procreative liberty. He then examines Supreme Court decisions regardi...
متن کاملAn oncology perspective on the Supreme Court's pending decision regarding the Affordable Care Act.
Beginning on March 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments regarding challenges to the recent federal health care reform legislation. The Court scheduled this unusually lengthy series of arguments to last for three days—a reflection of both the high stakes and the complexity of the legal issues involved. Whatever the Court ultimately decides, the outcome will have ...
متن کاملAn important Supreme Court decision for the dental field
Many oral and maxillofacial surgeons discussed and provided supplementary materials in the Social Networking Service. After the Supreme Court hearings, supplementary data was requested by the court, and many oral and maxillofacial surgeons submitted data. This yielded an excellent outcome. The efforts of the oral and maxillofacial surgeon were undoubtedly get praised in this trial. Because this...
متن کاملThe "Supremes" decide on assisted suicide: what should a doctor do?
On June 26, 1997, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2 unanimous decisions that there is no constitutionally protected right to assisted suicide. Overturning 2 1996 Federal Appeals Court rulings that had struck down Washington and New York state laws prohibiting assisted suicide, the Supreme Court rejected 2 key arguments. First, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the right to liberty guar...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- The American journal of hospice & palliative care
دوره 22 5 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2005