Marijuana Legalization
Political Science 275
September 12, 2018
Final Project
Marijuana Legalization
As we may be familiar with, the legalization of Marijuana has reached 30 states in the
United States. Of those 30 states, only nine of the states allow recreational marijuana use and
the others are used for medical purposes. The rise in use of cannabis In 1937, the Marihuana Tax
Act was challenged by a case called Leary V. United States. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
was an act that placed tax on the sales of marijuana. The act was signed by Harry Anslinger who
was a anti-cannabis prohibitionist and prior to this act being signed into law cannabis was legal
to be sold in pharmacies and stores as long as they had proper labeling and were regulated. Not
to my surprise, the American Medical Association was very opposed to the act due to the taxing
of pharmacists and physicians as well as farmers who produced the hemp. To many peoples
belief, this act was passed so easily due to a well-known film called Reefer Madness, which was
created by a church group that tried to spread the word about the dangers and education of
cannabis, shining a very dark light on the product. In 1969 the Marihuana act was overturned by
Leary V. United States.
Leary V. United States was a supreme court case that dealt with the constitutionality of
the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. As we have learned, if an act or law is seen as unconstitutional
or going against what our founding fathers would have intended, it is up for overturning. This
case in particular deals with a man named Timothy Leary who was an activist. He was arrested
for the possession of Marijuana which violated the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary had argued that his
Fifth Amendment right was being violated so the Justice Harlan declared that the Marihuana Tax
Act was in fact unconstitutional. Now, since the Tax Act was overturned it had been revised by
Congress and is now known as the Controlled Substance Act which allows for other substances
to be controlled in the United States.
The Controlled Substance Act is a federal drug policy that regulates the possessions,
uses, and distributions of certain substances. It was passed by Congress in 1970 and was signed
into law by President Richard Nixon. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is who implements
the Controlled Substance Act by prosecuting people who may violate against the levels (1-5) that
are used to classify drugs. These violations, according to the Controlled Substance Act website,
consist of abuse potential, accepted medical applications in the United States, and safety and
potential for addiction, which is most important in my opinion. Among the different schedules
and laws within this act, schedule one consists of drugs that have a high potential of abuse as
well as drugs that are not safe. The Schedule 1 states that THC and Marijuana is considered
schedule 1 drugs by the DEA, but state controlled laws (for example the ones where marijuana is
legal) do not have the ability to incriminate people for the usage, if they are within the legal age.
The legal age and the proper usage of these drugs is very important.
The first state to legalize Marijuana for medicinal use was California in 1996. Following
that, a new trend was enlightened among many other states by the year of 2016. There are two
different types of legalization of marijuana; medicinal and recreational. Medicinal marijuana is
legal in 30 states versus recreational marijuana use being legal in only nine. These nine states
include Colorado, Washington, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Vermont,
Oregon, as well as Washington D.C. There are statistics shown that the increase of marijuana
dispensaries has lowered the opioid epidemic as well as treating chronic pain, which opioids do
as well. The main difference between medicinal and recreational use is that medicinal states
require a green card. In order to purchase medicinal marijuana you must have a written
recommendation by a licensed doctor in the states that it is legal. In this case, you must have
some sort of medical condition that allows you to be qualified for the usage in a doctors opinion.
For example, some conditions that are qualified in most cases can be cancer, chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, inflammatory bowel disease,
Parkinson’s disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, and others of that intensity and sort. On the
other hand, recreational marijuana is available for anybody that is over the legal age, which in
the United States is 21 years old. It is important to understand the differences in recreational as
well as medicinal and the states that allow them because of the criminal charges that can be made
if these rules are broken.
Now it is legalized to use marijuana medically and recreationally in various states
including Oregon, among them the first in the country to lift the marijuana of medicine for the
first time was California. There are two major classes of cannabis for medical use and
preference, and medical marijuana is legalized in more than half of the 50 states across the
United States and Washington DC, among them the first in the US to release medical cannabis
first is California. Thus, the use of marijuana followed California, became legal in many states,
but the response to the marijuana of the people was various. In this essay, we would like to
discuss whether marijuana should be legalized based on various legal matters. Not only in the
United States but also in many of the world's developed countries, it is leaning towards the idea
that marijuana suction is not worth legal or punishment. One of the major reasons is that
marijuana suction does not cause health hazards. One of the remarkable effects is the reduction
in the number of crimes in the United States. Indeed, in Colorado, about a 53% decrease in
homicide, about 14% sexual violence and about 5% theft are accepted as compared with the
previous year. For these reasons, people have various opinions on marijuana. However, there are
many people who have a bad impression on the release of marijuana. Due to the advent of
edibles, there are cases where the person himself does not know marijuana without knowing. For
example, child has accidentally taken edibles to their mouths have been causing many accidental
deaths. In this case, there is a problem that the marijuana dose in confectionery is difficult to
understand, eating a large amount from the taste, and the intake of marijuana increases. In
addition, although we advertise to refrain from driving after marijuana suction, there are many
examples that lead to traffic accidents due to the characteristics of marijuana that actually gets
bigger. What is worse, there are death cases of doing dangerous acts such as jumping off the
window after marijuana ingestion. Although it is an individual responsibility, it does not mean
there is no influence on the surroundings and collateral. As you can see, cannabis has good and
bad aspects. The existence of marijuana is very ambiguous and there is a possibility that if you
ban cannabis absolutely, it will affect people who use it for medical use.
There are many cases in the background of the legalization of cannabis in the United
States involving economic revitalization of the state. According to a survey by ZipRecruiter, job
recruitment for legal cannabis related industry in 2016 in the United States was only 18% growth
compared with the previous year. However, in 2017 this was a huge increase of 445%.
According to Zip Recruiter's chief economist Cathy Barrera, the rapid growth is said to be
legalization of marijuana in California, which was lifted on January 1st this year. In the article
“Marijuana Business Daily”, in 2017, up to 230,000 workers are engaged in legal marijuana
related industry, the number also exceeds the number of people working as dental hygienists and
bakeries. Furthermore, according to statistics of BDS Analytics, the amount consumers paid for
marijuana in 2017 amounts to as much as $ 9 billion, in California where legalization of cannabis
use was made, and $ 5.1 billion in 2018, The sales of marijuana in the state in 2018 will exceed
beer. Moreover, BDS Analytics believes that cannabis brings about 40 billion dollars to the
whole of the United States, to about 4.36 trillion yen to the Japanese yen by 2021, and will bring
work to as many as 413,988 people up to the maximum. There is also concern about the future of
legalized cannabis related industries in the United States. Earlier in February, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions withdrew the policy negotiated in the Obama administration era, which the
Department of Justice would not intervene on the transaction of legal marijuana. Congressional
voices are also raised as this decision could threaten the future of legalized cannabis related
industries. It is also rare that President Cardamard talks about legal marijuana, and cannabis is
not a policy priority. According to New Frontier Data conducting a study on legal marijuana
related industry, if cannabis becomes legal throughout the United States, cannabis will bring tax
revenues of US $ 132 billion, by 2025, to the United States to 14 trillion 380.8 billion yen by
2025 It is said that there is a possibility that it will be.
References
“Will Cannabis Job Growth Continue to Outpace Tech Job Growth?”By Cathy Barrera
https://twitter.com/___Cannabis/status/957535285507534849
“Chart: Cannabis industry employs 165,000-plus workers”
https://bdsanalytics.com/
“The US cannabis industry is growing insanely fast — there are now more legal
cannabis workers than dental hygienists” by Jeremy Berke
“Marijuana legalization could inject over $130 billion into US tax coffers by 2025 — if the
Trump administration stays hands-off” by Jeremy Berke
Cannabis industry employs 165,000-plus workers
“Marijuana- For Medicinal Purposes Only.” InpPhafma, vol. 162, no. 1, 1978, pp4-6.,
doi:10.1007/bf03310392
Ravin v. Alaska: Privacy Right to Possess and Use Marijuana
Ravin v. State was a 1975 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court, asserting the right to privacy
protecting an adult’s right to use and possess a small amount of marijuana in their home for
purposes of personal use. In making this judgment, the Alaska Supreme Court became the first
federal court to create legal provisions for privacy rights regarding the possession and personal
use of marijuana.
History
Ravin v. State came up by an Alaska attorney named Ravin Irwin, who would not sign a
traffic ticket with the intention of getting himself arrested while in possession of marijuana.
Irwin deliberately got himself arrested with marijuana so as to challenge in court the existing law
that criminalized marijuana possession. Observing that the case was more about privacy than
misdemeanor, he stayed that:
The fight was always for privacy, our territory and now state has traditionally been the
home of people who prize their individuality and who have chosen to achieve a measure
of control over their own lifestyles (Ravin v. Alaska)
This argument challenged the state’s right to arbitrarily search individuals and their homes for
drugs like marijuana that are intended for personal use. Ruling in his favor, the court held that:
The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of
a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental
interest… the state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or
welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied (Ravin v. Alaska).
Subsequent Law
Fifteen years later, in 1990, Alaska voted through a ballot initiative to recriminalize
marijuana possession. Subsequently, the Alaska Court of Appeal held that ballot initiatives are
subject to the same constitutional checks as legislative enactments, hence the amendment to
criminalize possession of less than four ounces of marijuana for personal use was
unconstitutional. In 2006 Alaska’s Legislature amended the law to illegalize possession of more
than one ounce of marijuana, and qualifying it as a class A misdemeanor. Although Juneau
Supreme judge Patricia Collins struck down the legislation by determining that it was
unconstitutional, her judgment was overturned by the Alaska. Court in a 3-2 ruling.
In 2014 November, Alaskan voters approved a ballot initiative to legalize the possession
and sale of marijuana, subjecting it to the same regulations as alcohol.
Implication on Privacy Rights Regarding Possession and Use of Marijuana
The Alaska Supreme Court ruling raises serious legal issues regarding the right of
individuals to possess marijuana for personal use, as well as the right to privacy in relation to the
state’s authority to search homes or vehicles for marijuana. The right for marijuana possession
and use becomes more apparent especially when its use is for medical rather than recreational
purposes. The legal tussle over its use, however, is fueled by the controversial and conflicting
views regarding its medical effectiveness and safety of use (Maule, 2015). Politics also play into
the debate when politicians make pronouncements informed by political interests rather than
legal considerations.
Nevertheless, the supreme Court ruling set a precedent for future consideration of privacy
rights and the right to possess recreational drugs for personal use, viz a viz the right of the state
to carry out arbitrary or warranted searches. This the implication if this precedent is evident in
Florida v. Harris (2013), in which the court ruled on the need for sufficient probable cause to
carry out a search in the absence of a warranty. In legal usage, probable cause refers to the
existence of circumstances, reasonable grounds or evidence pointing to the possibility of a crime,
thus warranting a law enforcement officer to search private property or premises, and press
charges against the suspect. In Florida v. Harris, the court ruled on whether an alert by a sniff
dog provides sufficient probable cause to search the passenger compartment of vehicles, and
whether it meets legal provisions that allow law enforcers to make common-sense judgment, as
well as draw from their training, to determine whether there exists probable cause for a search
(Florida v. Harris, 2013).
In Florida v. Harris, a police officer on regular patrol was alerted by a sniff dog
promoting him to carry out a search on Harris’s car. The search failed to produce the targeted
drug, but the officer did find the ingredients used to manufacture methamphetamine. Like in
Ravin v. Alaska, Florida v. Harris raises serious issues that touch on individuals’ right to privacy,
law enforcement officers’ discretion in determining when it is necessary to breach that privacy,
and the admissibility of incriminating evidence discovered in a search intended to find something
else. Of particular interest is the fact that even an alert by a sniff dog does not provide sufficient
probable cause for a search. It raises the question whether it is reasonable to give a sniff dog the
benefit of doubt because it is trained to detect drugs- if it gives an alert, there must surely be
something? Even in cases where the dog might be wrong, it is reasonable for the present officer
to exercise his or her training and experience to determine whether a search is warranted. In the
case of Harris, it raises questions on under what grounds police officers might have probable
cause to carry out a search on private property. Even in the event there is probable cause for a
search, the case raises the question whether possessing reasonable amounts of marijuana for
personal use is itself criminals. As the Alaska Supreme rightly observed, possession is in itself
not criminal unless there is prove that state interests are affected, such as possessing with the
intention of selling to minors.
In Florida v. Harris, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, noting that lack of
consistency on the part of the sniff dog to correct detect drugs denied police officers the right to
carry out a search on grounds of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. On appeal, however, the
U.S Supreme Court overturned this ruling, arguing that law enforcers have the right to draw from
their training and exercise reasonable judgment on the basis of the totality of circumstances. By
overturning the ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court preserved the
state’s right to make a search when there is probable cause, as well as freed law enforcers from
the restrictions imposed by the lower court’s demand for a track record of a sniff dog’s
performance. If such a ruling was to be held, it could have created loopholes whereby suspects
would refuse to have their vehicles searched just because a sniff dog gave an alert. The
implication of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is that it is set a precedence for violating privacy
rights in the fight against drugs.
References
Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Ak. 1975)
U.S. Supreme Court. (February 19, 2013). Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. Florida v.
Harris. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-817
(Sen Zhao)
Gonzales v. Raich Case
During the year 1996 in California, a compassionate law was passed that allowed people to use
cannabis sativa also known as marijuana for health purposes. However, this was only to be done
in the instance when a medical professional had certified that the drug had a health benefit on the
patient. On the other hand, this is contrary to what the federal laws say because they do not give
such a provision. With this contradiction there emerged the case of Gonzales v. Raich. Raich was
a citizen from California and had been suffering from different ailing such as brain tumor,
chronic chest pains among others. For five years, she was in this condition and had exhausted all
the available medications whereby they were of no help to her. Her physician advised her to use
marijuana to reduce the pains, and that seemed to work. Raich's medical condition did not allow
her to grow marijuana and this is where Monson joined the lawsuit.
Monson was also suffering from the same situation though was growing marijuana for
herself and was to develop for Raich too. In the year 2002 deputies from the county department
approached Monson from her home for questioning. Accompanying them were officials the drug
enforcement agency (DEA) belonging to the federal government. After a lengthy discussion, the
deputies from the county offices found no harm for cannabis been grow since the Californian
laws allowed for that. However, an official from the DEA found this very unlawful and decided
to destroy the cannabis plants which they did.
Courts Involvement in The Topic
After the seizure and destruction of the marijuana plants by the government agency Rach
and Monson found this to be very wrong and they felt offended. Due to this reason, they both
decided to sue the government for the act in the laws of California which permits patients to
consume cannabis for their health. The claims that they had was that the government agencies
were to stop interfering with their business of growing medical cannabis which they clearly
stated that was not constitutional. In court, the two ladies were to be represented by a lawyer
known as Randy Barnett. Raich noted that her wellbeing solely depended on the using of medical
marijuana. Her doctor also swore under the oath that if she stopped to consume marijuana her
life would be at risk because all the other drugs were not working well with her body because she
was allergic.
On the other hand, Monson had the same condition whereby she was required to use
marijuana too. She had been involved in an accident sometimes back where and since then used
to encounter pains in her spine and muscles. To relieve these pains, the only option she had was
to use marijuana as a painkiller. On the government's side, the was a case presentation too. Under
the controlled substances act there is no provision which allows for the medical use of marijuana.
This was the reasons why the officials from the DEA stormed into those farms that were
producing marijuana (Wilkinson et al. 2016). Before this, they also raided the California
departments that dealt with medical marijuana and took their assets. The government did not
support the changes being made to the substance control act since this would compromise its
workability. It was also of the opinion that there should be no contradiction between the federal
laws and the state laws. California laws allowed people to grow medical marijuana, but the
federal laws did not allow that.
Insights into How the Unique Structural, Constitutional and Cultural Qualities Of The
American Justice System
Another similar case on the issue of the legalization of marijuana was that of Wickard v.
Filburn. This case functioned to give the government permission to regulate and control the
planting and consumption of some various plants. The regulated plants were those that would
have some influence on a person's behavior such as wheat according to the case. These cases
played a significant role in trying to shape the structure and qualities of the American justice
system. One of the insights that were portrayed in the cases was that of the contradiction between
the state laws and the federal laws. According to Raichs case in California, the laws there allow
people to plant and consume medical marijuana as long as a doctor certifies that the person truly
needs the medication.
On the other hand, the federal government laws do not allow for this and terms marijuana
as illegal (Somin, 2005). This would cause mayhem and misunderstanding to the possible
outcomes of a case. To avoid such a reputation to the justice system in America, it would be a
great thing that the Senate and the Congress should pass a law that would merge or if possible
scrap the state laws and make them one. Such a structural formation would favor the outcomes of
cases whereby conflicts between the two would not exist. For the state of California at the
moment there are approximately forty states that have allowed the consumption of medical
marijuana.
Characteristics and The Outcomes of Adversarial Legalism in Practice
In comparison to other developed countries, the American legal justice system can be
termed as that of adversarial legalism. This is according to a survey that was conducted in
comparison of how some cases are determined. Four aspects of the system are usually used
which include complications, the adjudication, the expenses that are incurred and the number of
penalties that a person gets if found guilty. Basing on the four the case involving Raich and
Monson on the issue of marijuana was able to portray some characteristics and outcomes of the
adversarial legalism practice in the united states of America (Caulkins, Kilmer, & Kleiman,
2016). To begin with complications, the citizens in our case Raich and Monson were not in a
situation to understand whether to follow the federal laws or the state laws which were
contradicting each other. Secondly, the adjudication of the case by the nine judges was a case of
six against three. This showed that there are those that supported the claims of Raich and
Monson and those who rejected. Finally, regarding cost, the restrictions on the use of medical
marijuana would have brought much misery to the health of both Raich and Monson since they
had chronic pains that would only be reduced by the drug.
Conclusion
In my own opinion, I would propose for few things regarding the issue of legalization of
marijuana. To begin with, I would request the government of America to merge or allow all the
states to be governed under one law. This would be the best idea to help counter the
contradictions that we have just witnessed. There also other instances where we find that the
state law says one thing while the federal regulations state the opposite. This may cause very
much damage to the citizens who mostly are the affected culprits at the end of the day. Secondly,
on the issue of marijuana, we know that marijuana apart from it being classified as a drug on the
negative side it also helps those patients suffering from chronic pain, for example, Raich and
Monson. To assist such people, the government should come up with a program where such
people are given the freedom to use medical marijuana under the supervision of the government
medical professionals. Those caught abusing it, however, should be sued and taken to a court of
law.
Reference
Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. (2016). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone
Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press.
Somin, I. (2005). Gonzales v. Raich; Federalism as a Casualty of the War on Drugs. Cornell JL
& Pub. Pol'y, 15, 507.
Wilkinson, S. T., Yarnell, S., Radhakrishnan, R., Ball, S. A., & D'Souza, D. C. (2016).
Marijuana legalization: impact on physicians and public health. Annual review of
medicine, 67, 453-466.
(Haifeng Wang)
Conant Vs Mccaffrey Case
In California, the citizens passed the Act of Compassionate Use. The act was effected
legally in 1996. In pertinent part, it provides that Californians who are seriously ill had the right
to acquire and use marijuana for purposes that were strictly medical. It would be allowed only if
the use has been deemed appropriate following a recommendation from a physician. It was
allowed for its benefits in the treatment of chronic pain, cancers, arthritis, AIDS, migraines and
other illnesses to relieve pain (Blythe, 2014). There was a promulgation of the federal
government policy passed in California and Arizona to decriminalize marijuana use for medical
use, thereby immunizing physicians from being prosecuted under the state’s law for allowing the
use of marijuana. Under the Act of California Code of Health Safety, the policy declared that the
public interest did not approve the action of recommending schedule 1 controlled substances, as
stated in the Act of federal controlled substances (Blythe, 2014).
The public interest considered relied on various factors including the State Board of
licensing approval, the experience of an applicant in researching and dispensing such controlled
substances and compliance with the laws surrounding the substances (Blythe, 2014). The Act of
Controlled Substances (CSA) states that a drug listed as schedule 1 for example marijuana or
heroin would not be dispensed as they have been determined by the federal law to be with no
significant benefit in the medical area currently (Fife et al., 2015). It also included that the
refusal of registration of a practitioner may be based on Attorney General’s issuance being
inconsistent with the interest of the public. The Attorney General also had the mandate to revoke
a physician’s license if actions are not in line with that of the public interest. The class action
included plaintiffs who were patients with serious illnesses, Licensed California physicians
meant to treat these patients and the organization of physicians. They were led by Doctor Marcus
Conant. These sought a permanent and preliminary injunction that would enjoin the government
from threatening or enforcing any provision of the law or statute in a way that would penalize
physicians from communications with their patients in a bona-fide relationship concerning the
potential benefits and harm of the use of marijuana as medicine (Blythe, 2014).
A motion to dismiss was filled by the defendants led by Barry Mccaffrey to dismiss the
preliminary injunction’s motion. Their motion and opposition were based on the Medical Leader
Letter sent from Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice. This letter
was meant to clarify and explain the position of the government regarding the discussions
between patients and physicians about marijuana. This letter addressed misinterpretations and
misperceptions that were transpiring because of the federal response to Arizona and California
initiatives. In that letter it was observed that before those initiatives, nothing in the federal laws
prevented a discussion between a patient and a physician about the alleged risks and benefits of
using marijuana to alleviate pain and some symptoms (Fife et al., 2015). It also continued to
explain that patients relied on their physicians for knowledge about a wide variety of health
treatments and hazards as well.
The patients are always encouraged to share their concerns or questions about issues and
the legal approaches of any medical modality or treatment. The letter warned that individuals
who would intentionally provide written or oral consent for the acquisition of controlled
substances, will face criminal prosecution, license for prescription authority and exclusion from
Medicaid programs. This letter assured the federal law is dedicated to protecting the public
against ineffective medicines through the various processes of drug approval. It also ascertained
that more additional steps are being undertaken to carefully explore all the scientific knowledge
(Blythe, 2014). It concluded that unless marijuana was reclassified, the law remained in effect.
The defendants argued that the clarification provided was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of
the First Amendment and delineated the limitation relating to behavior of physicians that are
permissible. The ruled that the government was enjoined permanently from revoking of DEA
physician’s license merely due to the doctor’s honest medical judgement to a patient and also
from the initiation of an investigation basing it on such grounds (Blythe, 2014). This injunction
was in effect whether or not the doctor anticipates the recommendation would be used to obtain
marijuana while violating the law.
One of the most recognizable and notable characteristics of the legal system in America
is the separation of the state and federal powers. Consequently, this separation led to the
existence of state and national laws, state and federal courts. The federal courts often decide of
cases of the state based on state law (Dickovick & Eastwood, 2016). However, there are more
complex court structures within the states that have jurisdictions overlapping each other. There
are a lot of complicated procedures that have to be met to allocate cases to various courts. These
rules have resulted in the trial of a case in one or more courtrooms. It is also characterized by its
constitutional review’s robust system. This refers to the constitutional evaluation of laws. It’s a
system that prevents the right’s violation granted by the constitution assuring that it is effective,
stable and preservative (Dickovick & Eastwood, 2016). This is administered in courts of
generalists having a jurisdiction over constitutional law- supreme laws of the land. The power of
the constitutional review has been distributed among a range of courts contrary to a single court.
Although the courts are not prohibited from addressing issues of the constitution, they can only
do so when the issues are a live, that is, in the context of argumentative disputes (Dickovick &
Eastwood, 2016). The common law was received among the American colonies and espoused as
the foundation of the legal systems in America after the state and federal constitutions
revolution. The American Law has established it traditions. Example of unique traits include the
importance of decisions made on previous cases. These are followed and handed down as
precedents unlike other countries which disregard the case laws (Franklin & Baun, 2016).
An attitude viewing regulations as legitimate will never mean that all individuals will
adhere to a myriad of regulations and rules that govern contemporary behavior faithfully. The
uniqueness of the system in U.S is distinct in that it considers public participation (Nonet,
Selznick & Kagan, 2017). The citizens only achieve goals because they rely on lawsuits and
threats. The legal adversarial system refers to a system used in countries with the common law,
where there’s the presentation of the parties’ case in front of a third party, that is, an impartial
group of individuals who try to pass judgement accordingly and determine the truth (Nonet,
Selznick & Kagan, 2017). The adjudication of methods of are less controlled, less hierarchical
and therefore, less predictable. The judges also are more autonomous, diverse and less uniform.
The law has some extent of malleability and is open to the novel policy and legal arguments,
taking the example of the plaintiff’s case that the law did not restrict sincere medical judgement
contrary to the fixed perception of the defendants to obey the law strictly (Barnes & Burke,
2017). The judge’s ruling was based on the impeccable evidence provided by the patients’
testimonies in court. The legal structures of the adversarial legalism provide a platform for
individuals who care about individual rights, legal institutions that enable the challenging of the
official power in courts and mistrust power that is concentrated.
References
Barnes, J., & Burke, T. F. (2017). The Politics of Legalism. In Varieties of Legal Order
(pp. 204-216). Routledge
Blythe, H. (2014). Physician-Patient Speech: An Analysis of the State of Patients’ First
Amendment Rights to Receive Accurate Medical Advice. Case W. Res. L. Rev.,
65, 795
Dickovick, J. T., & Eastwood, J. (2016). Comparative Politics: Integrating Theories,
Methods, and Cases, Oxford University Press.
Fife, T. D., Moawad, H., Moschonas, C., Shepard, K., & Hammond, N. (2015). Clinical
perspectives on medical marijuana (cannabis) for neurological disorders.
Neurology: Clinical practice, 10-1212.
Franklin, D. P., & Baun, M. J. (2016). Political Culture and Constitutionalism: A
comparative Approach. Routledge.
Nonet, P., Selznick, P., & Kagan, R., A. (2017). Law and society in transition: Toward
responsive law. Routledge
Surin V. Board of Education for Schaumburg School District #54 and the State of Illinois
Marijuana has faced an uphill battle towards obtaining legality, but that battle seems to be
nearing the peak of that hill. This issue has faced relentless resistance since before legalization
began to gain traction. Today there is still a large swath of Americans who still oppose
legalization of marijuana. To be fair to those swaths of people in states that have yet to legalize
marijuana, and the different levels to which it could be legalized (not at all, medical only, or
entirely), the Constitution certainly leaves the legalization of marijuana up to the states. Today
thirty-one states have legalized the use of medical marijuana while only nine states along with
the District of Columbia have legalized recreational use of marijuana. Illinois legalized medical
usage in 2013. Not a lot of people know that there are actually two aspects to marijuana, the
THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (Cannabidiol). The cannabidiol is the aspect used in the
majority of medical marijuana issuances. Gradually over time the people have began to
realize/understand that there are many benefits to marijuana usage due to the cannabidiol. I think
that once the majority of people comprehend that the cannabidiol aspect does not actually get a
person high the floodgates of legalization will open. It certainly seems that this has happened.
One benefit in particular is that the cannabidiol, not the THC, facilitates the easing of severity
and frequency of seizures. My case is Surin V Board of Education for Schaumburg School
District #54 and The State of Illinois. The case is fairly recent, only being resolved in January of
this year. A sixth-grade girl named Ashley Surin had been “suffering seizures due to treatment
for leukemia” and the only remedy that provided any relief for her had been medical marijuana
(McCoppin). The cannabidiol element had greatly reduced her seizures in both severity and
frequency of her seizures just as it had in previous instances. Her parents noted a drastic
improvement in her quality of life since she began to receive cannabidiol treatment. Before the
treatment Ashley had, “not been herself” according to her father (Christensen). One incident was
so severe she endured an extremely severe seizure while at the store with father and had to rush
to the emergency room. She hit her head on the cement floor with such force that the doctors
needed to drain the blood from her brain (Christensen). She receives a dual treatment of a
medical marijuana patch, similar to a nicotine patch, and a cannabis oil/lotion. Her parents, as
any parents would, view the treatment as a lifesaver. They note that, “the two together are a
golden cure for her… is more alert and she can interact” (Christensen). The only problem is that
Illinois law stated that not even medical marijuana was to be allowed at school in spite of how
the state had legalized medical usage of marijuana in 2013 (Madhani). In contrast to how school
employees are allowed to administer insulin to diabetic students, school employees would face
criminal prosecution if they were to help administer any aid with Ashley’s medicine
(Christensen). As someone who remembers school staff administering insulin to his diabetic
sister I find it reprehensible that staff would face such stiff penalties for doing their job and
helping students. In addition to staff facing prosecution for administering aid, Ashley and her
parents would have also technically been liable to face prosecution if she had worn her patch to
school (Christensen). Although it was unlikely that the young girl and her parents would have
ultimately faced that prosecution is unlikely, the school district concluded that it would be best to
reluctantly follow the law (Christensen). Ashley’s parents then decided that they would sue the
school district. The Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, in turn decided that she would not
pursue legal action against the Surins and said there should be no negative legal ramifications for
staff who help Ashley with her medicine and issued an emergency order that allowed Ashley to
return to school (Christensen). Unfortunately the attorney general’s emergency ruling was
narrow in scope. On the positive side, the case was scheduled to have hearings on whether or not
the scope of the ruling would be widened.
Those hearings would go on to yield positive results. Just under a month ago “Ashley’s
Law” made its way to the desk of the governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, who signed “Ashley’s
Law” into law (CBS). “Ashley’s Law” states that children who suffer debilitating illnesses are
allowed to take medical marijuana at school to relieve their pain (CBS). The students have or
will receive medical marijuana IDs to take to school so they can take their medication while at
school. The law also states that the students need to be in the presence of a parent, guardian, or
caretaker (staff). The students can take the medicine either through a patch like Ashley, or
through a pump or an edible (CBS). Since the passing of her law, Ashley’s parents have been in
contact with parents around the nation who have children suffering from similar illnesses to
Ashley. Their goal is to help spread Ashley’s law to each and every state that has legalized
medical marijuana so far. If the Surins are successful with their attempts to spread “Ashley’s
Law” as close to nationwide as they possibly can, thousands of children who are unable to take
the medicine they dearly need while at school will finally be able to, along with the parents, feel
relief (CBS). This a big win in the push for marijuana legalization. It really seems like the
American people are being awoken to the benefits of the cannabidiol found within marijuana.
Medical marijuana is well on its way to helping countless children and adults in the near future
thanks to the Surin family.
References
Christensen, Jen. CNN April 27, 2018. Groundbreaking medical marijuana case lets
little girl go back to school.
Madhani, Aamer. USA TODAY. January 12, 2018. Illinois says it won’t stop sick girl
from using medical marijuana at school.
McCoppin, Robert. CHICAGO TRIBUNE. January 12, 2018. Suburban 6th-grader will
be allowed to use medical marijuana in school – for now.
CHICAGO.CBSLOCAL.com. August 29, 2018. Thanks to ‘Ashley’s Law,’ Sick Illinois
students now can take medical marijuana at school.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment