Legalize it!!!
One can decide on their own whether using marijuana is legal or not. But regardless of what you and I think, marijuana is listed in the Schedule I of Controlled Substance Act, U. S. C. 21.812. It reads “The drug or substances has a high potential for abuse.” If you read further into the law it lists marijuana as hallucinogenic substance listed as number ten ‘Marihuana.’ U.S.C. 812.1 (a). The act which was passed on October 27, 1970 made marijuana’s use, position, distribution and manufacturing a federal crime. That was in effect up until 1996, when State of California voters enacted an initiative measure entitled the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. California is not the only state that has passed the voters initiative to use marijuana for medical purposes. Since 1996, the District of Columbia and nine other states including Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have passed laws protecting patient use of marijuana. The most widely known case that found its way to the highest court came from California. 3
The voters initiative which became law in California Health and Safety Code Section 11357-11362.9 (A) reads, “To ensure that seriously ill, California have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes…” 1 This statute created an exception not only to California laws prohibiting the position and cultivation of marijuana, but also violated the federal laws. I will use OCBC and Cooperative, which are the same company alternatively as deemed fit.
In the wake of this new voters initiative several groups such as the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (OCBC) organized medical cannabis dispensaries to meet the needs of qualified patients. A physician served as a medical director, and registered nurses staffed the Cooperative. To become a member, patients must provide a written statement from a treating doctor confirming to marijuana therapy. Once accepted the patient received an identification card entitling him/her to obtain marijuana from the Cooperative. The OCBC organization became the most active amongst others and attracted federal authorities to take action. It took the federal government about two years to bring a case against the OCBC. In January 1998, the United States sued the Cooperative and its executed director, Jeffery Jones in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Seeking to stop the Cooperative (OCBC) from distributing marijuana, U. S. argued that, whether or not the OCBC’s activities are legal under California law, they violate federal law. 2 Specifically the Government argued that the OCBC violated the Substance Abuse Acts prohibitions on distributing, manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute or manufacture a control substance. 21 U.S.C. 841(a). The U. S. argued, claiming that the Cooperative violated the Controlled Substance Act, a federal law, the district judge granted the injunction preventing the OCBC from distributing and manufacturing of marijuana. However this injunction did not stop the Cooperative from distributing and manufacturing of marijuana. They were brave enough to go against the judges decision and continue to serve the ill patients even though they could have been criminally prosecuted. These actions by OCBC did not stop government from pursuing their case. The government moved for a finding that the cooperative was in contempt of court, and the district judge agreed and found the cooperative in contempt. Finally the cooperative appealed the judge’s decision to the 9th U. S. Circuit court of Appeals. According to the cooperative, marijuana is the only drug that can alleviate the severe pain and other debilitating symptoms of the patients. The appeals court decided that there was a medical necessity exception to the federal ban on marijuana. The court went further saying that “… the district courts retain broad equitable discretions… and should have weighted the public interest and considered factors such as serious harm in depriving patients of marijuana.” 2
The Justice Department made a judgment that of all the misconducts subject to federal laws that takes place everyday, what merited its attention was a medically run nonprofit organization (OCBC) that distributed marijuana to sick people. Even though the government lost its case in the 9th U. S. Circuit court of Appeals, they were determined to bring down this organization regardless of public interest, medical necessity for ill patients and voters initiatives. The government thus began a crusade against the cooperative and did not stop the case until they felt that the National drug laws had been enforced properly.
After having granted the right, by the 9th circuit court, to resume distribution and manufacturing of medical marijuana to ill patients, cooperative got another news; the U. S. had taken the case to the Supreme Court. The Government filed a petition for a writ certiorari, which means that the Supreme Court will review lower courts decisions. Surprisingly the Supreme Court accepted the petition, knowing that it grants certiorari only in 1 percent to 2 percent of the cases. The government argued that the Ninth Circuit held that medical necessity is a “legal cognizable defense” to a claim of distributing marijuana, and that that district courts have “equitable discretion” to permit an organization to distribute marijuana. 2 The government argued that congress has banned the distribution of marijuana for any purpose, including purported medical use. To let an organization such as the Cooperative distribute and manufacture marijuana significantly undermines the effectiveness of the Controlled Substance Act and threatens the government’s ability to enforce an Act of Congress.
There are many arguments about the medical use of marijuana in state and the federal levels. There are people in the government who do support the medical use of marijuana for ill patients, and some of them are against it. Moreover 73 percent of the people support the use of marijuana for medical purpose, according to a March 1999 Gallup. No matter how many states have voters’ initiative, and how much the use of medical marijuana is supported by the public, the government of the United States is determined to bring down any organization that practice such actions. We all have witnessed California. Regardless of public interest and the ill patients the Controlled Substance Act still list marijuana under the Schedule I as hallucinogenic substance. We just have to sit tight and see what state is next. Perhaps the congress may pass a “Compassionate Use Act.”
Refs:
United States Code, Title 21, Section 812: part B. Authority to Control: Schedule of Controlled Substances
California Health and Safety Code
http://www.cannibisnews.com/news
http://www.cnn.allpolitics.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com