currently recognize medicinal marijuana use. According to 16 Legal Medical Marijuana States and Dc (n.d.), “state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess written documentation from their physician advising that they might benefit from the medical use of marijuana" (Laws, Fees, and Possession Limits). Within these 16 states limits on the use of Cannabis for medical reasons differ. Patient ID cards have become a mandated way of recognizing the patients who have prescriptions for valid medical reasons under state laws. Dispensaries in the states that recognize the ID cards will require them to be presented for the purchase of Marijuana.
States are using the tenth amendment to get their point across there path is highlighting the fact that the use of Medical Marijuana was not classified, Marijuana was classified before we knew the benefits of use. The tenth amendment states ‘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.’ In the United States Constitution there is a supremacy clause, which says that in case of conflict federal law precedes state law. According to federal law, there is no such thing as Medical Marijuana. Marijuana is a dangerous drug that the United States Congress has classified as a Schedule One substance. A Schedule One Substance doesn't have any accepted medical use in the United States and a high potential for abuse.
Parliament Debate: Opposition to the Legalization of Marijuana I argue in opposition to the statement that Texas should legalize marijuana and reject the proposal that would change the status quo by recognizing smokable marijuana as an accepted drug. I argue this because marijuana is not a safe or healthy alternative to other drugs and has not been scientifically tested with the results that classify it as useful for medicinal purposes. (TAB) According to Mark Kraus, a physician in Waterbury, Connecticut, and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, “smoked marijuana contains many of the same toxic or carcinogenic compounds that have been linked to lung cancer and emphysema” (Kraus). Kraus also states
Despite the effort to decriminalize medical marijuana, there is no general agreement that marijuana helps patients (DEA, 2006, p.1). The Food and Drug Administration has not approved medical marijuana in the use of treating any condition of disease (DEA, 2006, p.1). The FDA has stated that “no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use (DEA, 2006, p.1).” In general, there is no documented evidence supporting the medical value of the use of marijuana. Many influential sources in the medical community have supported the ideas and decisions of the FDA in regards to their position on medical marijuana. “The American Cancer Society ‘does not advocate inhaling smoke, nor the legalization of marijuana’ (DEA, 2006, p.2).” In addition to the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and British Medical Association have all denounced the use of marijuana for treatment of medical conditions (DEA, 2006,
They had violated statutes 53-22 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev). 55-22 made the use of any drug, medical article, or instrument to prevent conception a crime punishable by fine or jail. The latter held anyone who “assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense” as liable as the principal offender. The appellants were found guilty as accessories and fined $100 each. The case Poe v. Ullman (1961) dealing with the same statute, had been brought before the Court, but they refused to hear the case because no one had been charged with a crime.
among the stakeholders in the debate over medical marijuana include California taxpayers, medical marijuana dispensaries and growers, The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF), Attorney General Jerry Brown and Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco (gubernatorial candidates), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), and Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Arlen Specter (D-PA). This stakeholder analysis will examine each player’s formal and informal role in the policy process, their preferences on the issue, and their relative power and influence on the policy process (Baumbach, Miller, & Railsback, 2009). Each group believes their group is in the right resulting in more social
(Clark, n.d.) In November 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado agreed to directly challenge the federal marijuana prohibition and legalize the growing, selling and consuming of marijuana for all people age 21 and older. State officials have spent the last few months working on regulatory schemes that would not run afoul of federal authorities, who have so far taken a hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement in both states. (Clark, n.d.) What message does this send to the users of marijauna and to those who continue to sell and distribute marijuana illegally? In part, that's because legalizing drugs takes away a significant deterrent against drug use. Moreover, for as long as we have monitored drug use, we have seen that whenever there is a decrease in the percentage of young people who perceive marijuana use as harmful, the percentage of users increases.
If the doctors is prescribing marijuana for the help of medical conditions and contrary to the fact that marijuana does not cause serious health problems such as cancer, birth defects during pregnancy, emphysema, liver damage like those caused by tobacco and alcohol than why continue to fight against it. Death from a marijuana overdose is impossible. In all of world history, there has never been a single human death attributed to a health problem caused by marijuana. (Legalization of
Jessica Young 3/12/15 Week 8 Assignment Administrative Law The exclusionary rule was created to enforce the substantive right provided by the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the Fifth Amendment, which bans self-incrimination, the Fourth Amendment did not expressly exclude evidence that was obtained by unreasonable and illegal search and seizure. It was not until recently that the Supreme Court addressed the application of the rule to administrative law with the case of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza. The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule is not applicable in administrative deportation proceedings. Before then the Supreme Court had determined that the exclusionary rule applied to all federal and state criminal trials, but never in civil cases.