Gonzales Vs Raich

Gonzales vs raich

California is one of at least nine Gonzales vs raich that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. I California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. InCalifornia was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana, and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes.

References

InGonzales vs raich voters passed Propositionnow codified as the Compassionate Use Act of The proposition was designed to ensure that "seriously ill" residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps towards ensuring the safe and affordable distribution of the drug to patients in need. The Act creates an exemption from criminal prosecution for physicians, as well as for patients and primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medicinal purposes with the recommendation or approval of a physician.

A "primary caregiver" is a person gonzales vs raich has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of the patient. Respondents Angel Raich and Diane Monson are California residents who suffer from a variety of serious medical conditions and have sought to gonzales vs raich themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act.

They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents' conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment.

Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors' recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich's physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.

Respondent Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer.

The Supreme Court Justice’s Statement is Part of a Bigger Movement

Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as "John Does," to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also process the cannabis into hashish or keif, and Raich herself processes some gonzales vs raich the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption.

After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law.

Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants. Respondents thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act CSA to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or what are the 6 characteristics of a civilization cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana.

The District Court denied respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction. The court found that respondents had "demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority.

Lopez, U. Morrison, U. The obvious importance of the case prompted our grant of certiorari. The case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.

The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets gonzales vs raich medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer.

Redirects here:

The CSA is a valid exercise of federal power, even as gonzales vs raich to the troubling facts of this case. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals II Marijuana itself was not significantly regulated by the Federal Government until when accounts of marijuana's addictive qualities and physiological effects, paired with dissatisfaction with enforcement efforts at state and local levels, prompted Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act. Like the Harrison Act, the Marihuana Tax Act did not outlaw the possession or sale of marijuana outright. Rather, it imposed registration and reporting requirements visit web page all individuals importing, producing, selling, or dealing in marijuana, and required the payment of annual taxes in addition to transfer taxes whenever the drug changed hands Then inafter declaration of the national "war on drugs," federal drug policy underwent a significant transformation Prompted by a perceived need to consolidate the growing number of piecemeal drug laws and to enhance federal drug enforcement gonzales vs raich, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA.

The CSA categorizes all controlled substances into five schedules. The drugs are grouped together based on their accepted medical uses, the potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body This preliminary classification was based, in part, on the recommendation of the Assistant Secretary of HEW "that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway. Sociological theries classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, gonzales vs raich manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration pre-approved research study.

Despite considerable efforts to reschedule marijuana, it remains a Schedule I drug.]

Gonzales vs raich Video

Gonzales vs. Raich Case

Gonzales vs raich - think

It gives a brief definition of each concept and its relationships. This is a giant online mental map that serves as a basis for concept diagrams. It's free to use and each article or document can be downloaded. It's a tool, resource or reference for study, research, education, learning or teaching, that can be used by teachers, educators, pupils or students; for the academic world: for school, primary, secondary, high school, middle, technical degree, college, university, undergraduate, master's or doctoral degrees; for papers, reports, projects, ideas, documentation, surveys, summaries, or thesis. Here is the definition, explanation, description, or the meaning of each significant on which you need information, and a list of their associated concepts as a glossary. More languages soon.

Something: Gonzales vs raich

Cause Of Nationalism	Editing thesis
Professional paper writing service	Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft modernalternativemama.com), U.S. 1 (), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.. Background. California voters passed Proposition in , legalizing the use of. When the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich2 in , it marked the first occasion in over a decade that the Court broadly construed the Commerce Clause to permit federal regulation of intrastate activity. More importantly, Raich signaled an abrupt end to the. View Notes - GONZALES V. modernalternativemama.com from HISTORY at Hialeah Gardens Senior High School. Ariadna Frometa GONZALES V. RAICH o California’s Compassionate Use .
Gonzales vs raich	Social conformity articles
Gonzales vs raich	Dissertation service
Gonzales vs raich	View Notes - Gonzales v Raich from POLITICAL POS at Arizona State University. Gonzales v. Raich United States Supreme Court U.S. 1 () Rule of Law Congress may regulate the use and. Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft modernalternativemama.com), U.S. 1 (), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.. Background. California voters passed Proposition in , legalizing the use of. Gonzales v. Raich by lessig ANNOTATION DISPLAY. TEXT. Show Full Text. Show Comments. Show Links. TAGS & HIGHLIGHTS. All. EDIT ANNOTATED .

gonzales vs raich.