Constitutional law essay outline

Why has drug abuse become such a tremendous problem nowadays? How does the law restrict the drug abuse issue? What legal act does prohibit narcotics i

Why has drug abuse become such a tremendous problem nowadays? How does the law restrict the drug abuse issue? What legal act does prohibit narcotics in constitutional law essay outline United States of America? Introduction: Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country.

The position of the United States of America towards drugs has always been very clear and distinctively negative. Throughout the history of the country there were numerous cases against drug dealers, buyers and many more. These cases did always catch the attention of civil people who by showing interest in such cases revealed their worries about the future of their own children that one-day might face this problem, too. As time goes by it get even more clear that people need to feel protection from the side of law-enforcement establishments such as police. Million of people followed the case from its very beginning and did have certain expectations concerning the outcome of the case.

The specifics of the case made people have twofold points of view when analyzing the solution that was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas concerning the case. Nevertheless, to understand the solution it is necessary to examine the case deeper and only then decide whether the Court’s decision is really twofold, ambiguous or completely justified. Main points of the case. Summarizing the main point in the opinion of the case it is necessary to start from its very beginning. The case was argued on the 28th of March 2001 and the decision was delivered on the 14th of May 2001.

It was argued intensively and both of the sides were acted rather confident. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative with Jeffrey Jones as a head started its life according to California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and was started to follow medical purposes of distributing marijuana to people that in accordance with their state of health qualify for it as a treatment. 1998, when it was sued by USA. The activity of the Cooperative continued in spite of the District’s Court decision and its activity was very intense. The key issue presented by the Cooperative was its medical necessity defense, other words they stated that all the marijuana that was distributed by means of their organization was only distributed according to the medical necessity of this substance by qualified patients.

As it has been already mentioned the District Court made an injunction concerning the activity of the organization and the following consideration of the case lead to the Court of Appeal. So the reason the United Stated of America charged the organization is for the violation of the policy concerning the distribution and manufacturing of the substance. On the other side the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative cited the medical necessity defense which was approved the Court of Appeal and lately made the District Court change its injunction concerning the activity of the cooperative. The main argument of USA suing the Cooperative. The United States of America on its side presented a tremendously weighty argument that deals with the law of the country in the first place. The mentioned above Controlled Substances Act is a certain prohibition concerning narcotics, which has been made by experts and considered to be a law. The argument of the case was related to the possibility to make an exception concerning the Controlled Substances Act prohibitions.

Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative implied that marijuana is medically necessary for a definite group of people and the USA’s government considered this to be a violation the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Clarence Thomas clearly reveal the decision of the Court. Controlled Substances Act and therefore sell it to people, who may medically require it. Manufacturing of marijuana as a fact in the activity of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and therefore its possibility to distribute marijuana to the citizens of the country was concluded to be weightier than marijuana’s medical treatment characteristics.

Therefore the Court confirmed USA’s position of the impossibility to make violate the prohibitions of the Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, the decision of the case remained unflinching and by this produced a lot of opposition. Various aspects of the case. The decision of the court is obviously twofold and makes every person think deeply before expression any kind of opinions. People who really do suffer from hard diseases and may require marijuana might experience certain difficulties and probable complications in their health state. Therefore hospitals, which previously primarily had to deal with people belonging to this group, find themselves in the situation of inability to help their patients.

They need to find more high-priced medicaments for the patient’s treatment, which may hit hard the budget of the hospital and of the patient. This ambiguous case may require new statutes or constitutional amendments, due to the statutory ambiguity according to the opinion of some people. Nevertheless, this ambiguity is rather questionable and the Controlled Substances Act points it rather clearly. It seems that it is better to find a medical substitute of marijuana, which is easier to do nowadays when medicine keeps providing new innovative medicaments, than it was for instance, 30 years ago.

And maybe this is one of the primary reasons the Controlled Substance Act becomes so restrictive. It is obvious that it was designed in order to protect the health of the citizens of the country from drug-dependence and therefore any statement claiming that it will kill people has no base under itself. It was a case of health v. Controlled Substance Act protected million of potential dope fiends and the cooperative defended a certain group of people who may find an alternative medical treatment. Is marijuana that advisable after all?

This was the main question that the Court answered by its decision. It is obvious that this case did touch certain moral issues, as the case was about the health of human beings. Analyzing the destructive influence of marijuana in general it is necessary to remember that marijuana does more harm than it does good. Therefore, would not it be the main question to stop the outcry against the policy. Sigmund Fried went through this trying to treat people. Why should we do it?

Let us put the health of the nation ahead of everything. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative: whatever happened to federalism? Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Court found that the Interstate Commerce Clause, Art.