Drug abuse has always been an awkward subject as it has always dealt with one’s health and wellbeing. The United States place towards drugs has always been very clear and typically negative. Throughout history in our country, there have been many cases against drug dealers and buyers. These cases caught the public’s attention that showed interest, in such cases that worries expressed about the future of their children and that someday they might face this problem. As time went by it, was clear that people needed to feel protected by law enforcement organizations such as the police department. Drug abuse can destroy the life of a person. Therefore, while combating with the dealers and buyers’ organizations with no other importance than …show more content…
removing this part from society. The case, known as “United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative” did more than catch the attention of people. Millions of people followed this case from the beginning and had certain hopes about the outcome of the case. The particulars of the case made people have dual opinions of the outlook when evaluating the result that they delivered on the case. Nevertheless, to understand the result it is necessary to look at the case deeper and only then can one decides whether the Court’s decision was ambiguous, or completely justified. The case was, argued on March 28, 2001 and the decision delivered on May 14, 2001. They argued intensively on both sides and acted confident. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative with Jeffrey Jones as the opening started with the life according to California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and started to follow medical reasons for supplying marijuana to people, by their state of health qualify for it as a treatment. This organization spent two years supplying marijuana to “qualified patients” until 1998, when the United States took legal action against them. The main point of the argument was that United States government charge Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative with breach of the Controlled Substances Act for distributing, manufacturing, and possession of an illegal substance, marijuana is in the Controlled Substances Act. The exploits of the Cooperative continued in spite of the District Court’s judgment and the activity was intense. The main issue given by the Cooperative was its medical necessity, other words they declared that all the marijuana that dispensed by their organization according to the medical necessity of qualified patients. As mentioned by the District Court they made a ruling on the actions of the organization and the following consideration of the case lead to the Court of Appeals. According to the Court of Appeals all, the medically necessity distributions be allowed. Therefore, the reason the United Stated accused the organization for violations of the policy on the distribution and manufacturing of the illegal substance. On the other side the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative quoted the medical necessity, which was, approved by the Court of Appeals, and later made the District Court change its ruling about the actions of the cooperative. The United States presented a tremendous argument that dealt with the laws of the country.
They remarked on the Controlled Substances Act and a certain embargo on illegal drugs, which made by authorities and considered law. There is no exception from the law; its associated to the situation when the fact of not knowing a law does not release you from the responsibility for violating a law. An argument of this case related to the possibility to make exceptions about the Controlled Substances Act. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative suggested that marijuana is medically necessary for a certain group of people and the United States government should consider this an infringement on the Controlled Substances Act. The extent of marijuana’s need for medical purposes was the point that caused the greatest of the questions throughout the case. The Court supposed to solve this problem and declare its …show more content…
judgment. The law reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits and is not worthy of an exemption; medical need is not a justification to manufacturing and distributing marijuana. The level of medical need of marijuana is determined not to be enough to make exemptions in the Controlled Substances Act and selling it to people, who may medically need it. Manufacturing of illegal drugs as a fact in the actions of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and its option to supply marijuana to the populations of the United States is determined to be serious than marijuana’s medical therapy characteristics. Therefore, the Court confirmed the United States place of the impossibility to breach the embargos of the Controlled Substances Act. The view of the Court essentially reflected that no distribution should be acceptable even by medical necessity and no protection given to such suppliers.
The likelihood to make an allowance assessed in four medical cases. The foregoing restriction does not apply to the distribution of cannabis by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative to patient members who suffer from a severe medical ailment, will they suffer imminent harm if the patient does not have access to cannabis, do they need cannabis for the treatment of the patient’s medical condition, or need cannabis to relieve the medical illness or symptoms related to the medical condition, and have no reasonable legal alternative to cannabis for the successful treatment or relief of the patient's medical condition or symptoms related with the medical condition because the patient has tried all other legal options to cannabis and the options have been unsuccessful in treating or relieving the patient's medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, or the substitutions result in side effects which the patient cannot moderately tolerate. This critical exception by itself caused many disputes and weakened the commitment of the Controlled Substances Act. However, the decision of the case remained unwavering and by this created a lot of
opposition. The decision of the court clearly makes everyone think before expressing any kind of opinion. People really do suffer from illnesses and may experience certain difficulties, and complications in their health that may need use of marijuana. Therefore, hospitals before had to deal with patients belonging to this group, and find themselves in the situation with the lack of ability to help their patients. They may need to find an expensive drug for their patient’s treatment, which may hit the budget of the hospital and of the patient hard. This case is complex due to its association to the most valuable thing, the life, and health of a person. This case may need new laws or even constitutional changes, due to the legal uncertainty according to the view of some people. However, this uncertainty is questionable and the Controlled Substances Act senses it clearly. It seems that it would be better to find a medical substitute for marijuana, which is easier to do now when medicine keeps delivering new groundbreaking treatments, than it did 30 years ago. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the Controlled Substance Act becomes so restraining. The design to protect the health of the population of our country from drug dependency and therefore any statement stating that it will kill people has no basis. It was a case of health v. health, and the only difference was that the Controlled Substance Act protected millions of potential drug addicts and the cooperative defended a certain group of people who may find another medical treatment. Therefore, the Court’s decision remains the same: “…there is no medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue, even when the patient is "seriously ill" and lacks alternative avenues for relief.” Is marijuana that desirable after all? Was the main question answered by the Court’s decision? It is obvious this case did not touch certain issues, as the case was about the health of the people. Examining the negative impact of marijuana, and it is necessary to remember that marijuana does more harm than good. Therefore, would it be the main question to stop the protest against the policy. An illegal drug will always stay an illegal drug. Why should we do it? Let us put the health of the country ahead of everything else.
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
Also known as California Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 made headlines around the country as the first law ever to change the legality of medical marijuana for public consumption statewide. Originating in San Francisco, it was passed by 55.6% of California voters on November 5, 1996 (Human Rights and the Drug War). The ideology behind passing Prop. 215 is that marijuana contains a number of legitimate medical uses and should be made available to those who would benefit from it. The text of the proposed law states that “seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate” (NORML, 2009). All patients possessing a reasonable amount of marijuana are protected and may use it at any time as long as it is done privately. However, before patients can begin using marijuana they must seek approval from a physician who are also protected under the law and cannot be persecuted for issuing a recommendation. The authors also realized there would need to be a safe and reliable source to obtain marijuana and intended Prop. 215 to encourage both “the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana” (NORML). In addition to purchasing it, Prop. 215 also allows patients to cultivate their own plants but strictly for personal use only. Any evidence of distributing marijuana or growing more plants than needed for personal use carries a high risk of prosecution.
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
"State Medical Marijuana Laws." Legislative News, Studies and Analysis. National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014. Web. Apr. 2014. .
Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal government does not protect or even recognize the rights of users or possessors. The debate over marijuana has picked up momentum and many would agree that all this uprising conflict can be traced back to the constitution and the flaws it presents. The constitution is blamed for not properly distributing the States and Federal powers. Although the federal government currently holds supremacy over marijuana, States should have the power to regulate the drug because under the 10th amendment the federal government only has those powers specifically granted in the constitution, Likewise the States have the right to trade within their own state under the Commerce Clause.
The war on drugs has brought up many questions. Some may argue that all drugs should be legalized. Legalizing drugs in the U.S. could possibly reduce the amount of addicts. Research suggests that, “But 400,000 policemen would be freed to pursue criminals engaged in activity other than the sale and distribution of drugs if such sale and distribution, at a price at which there was no profit, were to be done by, say, a federal drugstore”. This would ease a lot of tension off police officers around the country. However, because drugs are not legal, society has to rely on their local police departments to keep them safe from addicts (Wm. F. Buckley Jr.,
cover the right to have recreational marijuana as and when one wishes? A marijuana consumer
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 marijuana has a small amount of negligible effects to its users, the herbal drug more importantly has remarkable health benefits, and legalizing one of the oldest and most commonly known drugs would redirect America’s future with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
On November 5th, 1996 Ballot Proposition 215 was approved which removed criminal penalties for the use, possession, and cultivation of marijuana by anybody who has a written recommendation from their doctor saying he/she would benefit from medicinal marijuana. In recent years, the use of recreational marijuana has increased. More and more adolescents and adults are using marijuana on a day to day basis and that number is only just increasing. Marijuana has become not a big issue in our culture. In California, the use of recreational marijuana is still illegal but with the help of the media, the horrible stigma tied along to it is surely fading. Marijuana can be used everywhere now with the tools that are available. Just recently, “vape pens” have become a big thing in society making the intake of marijuana not only more potent but more discreet. The use of recreational marijuana can be used anytime throughout the day depending on the user’s wants and needs. Many marijuana users use this drug for its health benefits. “Doctors prescribe medicinal marijuana to treat muscle spasms by mul...
Many of the illegal drugs in our world today, may change the face of medicine by curing what we thought was incurable and helping in easing suffering of many ill patients; marijuana is an example of that. Marijuana may be used to treat migraines and glaucoma, prevent Alzheimer’s and shrink tumors, yet it is still illegal. Not t...
Drug addiction has been a massive rising issue looming over the United States for the better half of a century. As the number of Americans using illegal drugs increases, the number of illegal drugs entering the United States increases as well, thus causing the war on drugs. The drug war essentially is a campaign of prohibition that aims to reduce illegal drug trade. Today, the war on drugs has influenced police officers and other law enforcement personnel’s to become corrupt. The articles “Police Corruption is Fueled by the War on Drugs” by Joseph D. McNamara and “In Drug Fight in Texas Border, Some Officers Play Both Sides” by Manny Fernandez, for The New York Times, explore the relationship between police corruption and the war on drugs. McNamara’s article better represents the impact that the current war on drugs has on the American police considering the fact he better illustrates each point he presents.
Illegal drugs have become a grave threat to the United States. With the use of illegal drugs, comes the rash of criminal activity to fuel the criminals devastating dr...
The first legal issue that is discussed in this paper is the harsh or punitive nature of the Dangerous Drug Act and the classification of marijuana. Cannabis Sativa, or any other name it is referred to, be it Ganja, marijuana, weed, or “Mary Jane” under the Dangerous Drugs Act it is classified as a dangerous drug, and is included in the First Schedule list of narcotic drugs. Possession of any quantity is an offence liable upon summary conviction to a fine of $25,000 and to imprisonment for five years; and upon conviction on indictment to a fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment for between five and ten years. The current legislation allows for persons to be criminally punished for petty crimes. Persons who have been in possession of only 2 grams of marijuana have had to face incarceration. This is unnecessary as it creates a permanent criminal record for persons who may have only been experimenting.
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.