Law case of Marijuana Legalization

User Generated

znttvrznttvr

Writing

Description

Need edit this paper, add one introduction and one conclusion.My topic is about the law cases of Marijuana Legalization . Format APA

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
1

Marijuana Legalization
Name
Institution

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

2
Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana is one of the most abused drugs in the world. Also referred to as cannabis
sativa or simply bhang, the drug is quite popular amongst the younger adults and teenagers.
In the year 2015, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that an estimated 11 million
young adults from age 18-25 were active users of the drug. It is a commonly held belief that
marijuana is a harmful drug with its side effects being adverse especially when overused or
abused. However, in recent developments, the drug has also been identified as one that could
be used for medicinal purposes. This has resulted in the sparkling of a huge global debate
over whether or not to legalize marijuana. This paper takes a look at how the discussion on
the legalization of marijuana has unfolded and the impact it has had, especially in the United
States.
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 the 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 a tax on the sales of marijuana. The bill was signed by
Harry Anslinger who was an anti-cannabis prohibitionist and before this act being approved
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 quickly due to a wellknown 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.

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

3

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, so the Justice Harlan
declared that the Marihuana Tax Act was 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, plan one consists of drugs that have a
high potential for abuse as well as drugs that are not safe. The Schedule 1 states that THC and
Marijuana are considered schedule 1 drugs by the DEA, but state-controlled laws (for
example the ones where marijuana is legal) cannot incriminate people for the usage if they
are within the legal age. The legal age and the proper usage of these drugs are significant.
The first state to legalize Marijuana for medicinal use was California in 1996.
Following that, a new trend was enlightened among many other countries by the year 2016.
There are two different types of the legalization of marijuana; medicinal and recreational.
Medicinal marijuana is legal in 30 states versus recreational marijuana use being legal in only

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

4

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 therapeutic states require a green card. 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 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 pot 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 in
California. Thus, the use of marijuana followed California, became legal in many states, but
the response to the pot of the people was various. In this essay, we would like to discuss
whether marijuana should be legalized based on multiple 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 primary reasons is

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

5

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, many people have a terrible 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, a child has accidentally
taken edibles to their mouths have been causing many accidental deaths. In this case, there is
a problem that the marijuana doze in confectionery is challenging to understand, eating a
tremendous amount from the taste, and the intake of marijuana increases. Also, although we
advertise to refrain from driving after marijuana suction, many examples lead to traffic
accidents due to the characteristics of marijuana that 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 the 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 massive
increase of 445%. According to Zip Recruiter's chief economist Cathy Barrera, the rapid
growth is said to be the legalization of marijuana in California, which was lifted on January
1st this year. In the article “Marijuana Business Daily,” in 2017...


Anonymous
Awesome! Made my life easier.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags