3.On appeal, the defendants renew their claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they grew marijuana and that the marijuana found in the residence belonged to them or was for distribution. 4. The Utah Supreme Court, affirmed Gary Fox’s conviction while reversing the conviction of Clive Fox. QUESTION OF LAW: Whether evidence that people owned property where marijuana plants were found, and where some level of occupancy is established, is sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. This requires that the defendant knowingly and intentionally posses the controlled substance, and that the defendant intend to distribute it.
The 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that suing the cigarette manufacturers was preempted because of the 1965 federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and the Public Health Cigarette Act of 1969, which bans smokers and the families of smokers from suing cigarette companies on the basis of state tort laws. The Supreme Court heard the case but it divided the court into three groups. One group with four justices that made up the plurality and two that stated opinions that where both concurring and dissenting, the only thing they could agree on was that it would be difficult for the lower courts to understand it and then implement it. So ultimately they decided “that any state law that established a duty to warn consumers of health hazards in order to make the product reasonably safe was preempted by the language specifying “no requirement or prohibition” in the 1969 federal Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act.” (Anna, G.) In other words, any lawsuit after 1969 would not succeed on the grounds of any alleged failure of the cigarette companies to include any other health warnings
He defends this claim against a variety of objections, including the claims: that marijuana is unsafe, that marijuana cannot be adequately tested or produced as a drug, that the availability of synthetic THC makes marijuana superfluous, and especially that legalizing medical marijuana will increase recreational use by 'sending the wrong message.' He then goes on to argue that given the intransigent position of the federal government on this issue; state governments are justified in unilaterally legalizing medical marijuana as an act of civil
In hindsight it would be like any other substance like alcohol where certain proofs of alcohol are illegal in the United States while others are legal. The reasons that marijuana was made illegal have been a controversial issue since it started. No matter what the reasons were during those times, society has changed and evolved since then where the people are realizing it is a drug that is no worse than alcohol or tobacco; both which are legal. The question is really why it became illegal in the first place, when even the U.S. Constitution is written on hemp? So for a substance that is illegal, why is the most important document in the country that states our independence written on a parchment that is technically illegal today.
“The Institute of Medicine panel concluded that marijuana has some therapeutic value for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation, and should be studied further in order to develop new cannabinoid drugs. It also concluded that marijuana has limited effectiveness in relieving the symptoms of glaucoma. No evidence was found that marijuana acts as a gateway drug to more dangerous recreational drugs.” (Levy, 1999) Living with HIV/AIDS can be extremely difficult and very painful. You lose the desire to do anything you stop eating, you get depressed, you are nauseous all the time. “Despite the limited amount of data available on the use of medicinal marijuana in the general population, it has been suggested that persons with HIV/AIDS are the largest group of medicinal marijuana users in both Canada and the United States.” (Furler, Einarson, Millson, Walmsley, Bendayan, 2004) While this may be true there are other minor diseases out there with the same symptoms so why should it be so hard for them to get medicinal marijuana?
Federalism and Marijuana Federalism and the Legalization of Marijuana Laramie Bahr POL 201 American National Government Jeremiah Chauncey 09 August 2014 Federalism and Marijuana The 'War on Drugs' has been raging across the nation since the passing of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. On the surface of it this 'war' seems noble and without ambiguity. Many states, however, see it differently when it comes to the possession, use, and growth of marijuana. In this essay I will show that federalism has been, and will continue to be, tested as the federal government and the states find themselves increasingly at odds over the issue of legalized marijuana. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 defined what drugs were illegal,
Essay #1 The article “Kyllo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy” by Thomas D. Colbridge is to inform us about the balance between individuals privacy and the government enforcing laws to give safety to the public. It is about the use of thermal imaging technology by the police in the case of Kyllo which goes against his Fourth Amendment which protects him against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since the search was unreasonable and it was never defined in the constitution, it needs much more interpretation for the case. The Kyllo Case essentially is the use of thermal imaging law enforcement used to find out indoor marijuana growing operations in Kyllo’s property. But in the end when it reached the Supreme Court the third time and was ruled that Kyllo was indeed under the protection of the Fourth Amendment.
Article Rebuttal: What Do Medical Professionals Say About Marijuana Darcel Darscheid BCOM/275 1/13/2014 Dr. Gail Zwart Article Rebuttal: What Medical Professionals Say About Marijuana The legalization of medicinal cannabis is extremely controversial in this day and age. Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM), a group of diverse individuals “working to defeat the legalization of marijuana in California’s November 2010 election” (para. 1) have created a website dedicated to the opposition of legalizing marijuana. After reading the article on the website CALMca.org, What Medical Professionals Say About Marijuana, and researching the claims made in the article, has proven to be unreliable, non-credible, and invalid.
Marijuana, Long Overdue Decriminalization The legalization of marijuana is long overdue, it is necessary for the federal government to invest in scientific research and decriminalize it. There is an ongoing contradictory dilemma whether it can be used as medicine and be therapeutic. The controversy of whether marijuana can be used medically has been a political issue more than scientific. Alcohol and tobacco has proven to be more dangerous than marijuana. Because there is evidence supporting that marijuana has benefits for medical purposes and there is no real support that it is fatal, marijuana should be legalized and distributed through a controlled market; thus helping to resolve ongoing issues both medically and politically.
Second the aspect of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use helps with patients who suffer from cancer, glaucoma, and AIDS is undeniable. Finally, the cost of keeping marijuana illegal is outrageous. First our liberty is at stake. This country was set up by our fore fathers to be free and have the right to choose. I believe that most Americans want the right to choose whether or not to smoke marijuana.