GONZALES V.RAICH OPINION PDF

California voters passed Proposition in , allowing qualified patients to cultivate and use marijuana for designated medical illnesses. Gonzales v. Raich. Media. Oral Argument – November 29, ; Opinion Announcement – June 06, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. On June 6, , the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal Controlled Substances . The dissenters attacked the Majority opinion as a complete departure from the.

Author: Gardasho Kigakora
Country: Lebanon
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 19 June 2012
Pages: 177
PDF File Size: 19.16 Mb
ePub File Size: 18.20 Mb
ISBN: 914-2-46757-793-9
Downloads: 64756
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gami

On its face, a ban on the intrastate cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana may be plainly adapted to stopping the interstate flow of marijuana. Mower28 Cal. The remedy was enforceable in both state and federal courts, and generally depended on proof of the violation of a state law. Two days after the ruling, the International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board “welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for ‘medical’ use, should be prohibited.

They amount to nothing more than a legislative insistence that the regulation of controlled substances must be opinioh. Everyone agrees that the marijuana at issue in this case was never in the stream of commerce, and neither were the supplies for growing it.

Opinin ask the Court to excise individual applications of a concededly valid comprehensive statutory scheme. The submissions of the parties and the numerous amici all seem to agree that the national, and international, market for marijuana has dimensions that are fully comparable to those defining the class of activities regulated by the Secretary pursuant to the statute.

Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to “appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce. Idaho South Dakota American Samoa. Retrieved 6 April This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. McCullochsupragonzaoes —; D. MorrisonScalia felt that it was necessary to distinguish those precedents from Raich.

Anteat 9—10, 19 majority opinion. United States, U. Scalia found that the link between intrastate and interstate activity was much more direct in this case than in Lopez or Morrison.

  HAMVAS BELA PDF

Gonzales v. Raich – Wikipedia

She and her doctor claimed to have tried dozens of prescription medicines for her numerous medical conditions and that she was allergic to most of them.

See also Garcia v. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained. In the event that a qualified patient is arrested for possession v.raicch his cannabis is seized, he could seek to prove as an affirmative defense that, in conformity with state law, he possessed or cultivated small quantities of marijuana intrastate solely for personal medical use.

Ogden9 Wheat. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Carefully distinguishing medical from recreational uses of marijuana, the plaintiffs had not challenged the CSA with regard to its prohibition against ordinary recreational use.

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting v.raicy, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States.

InCalifornia voters passed Propositionnow codified as the Compassionate Use Act of While the diversion of homegrown wheat gpnzales to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, v.raihc diversion v.raic homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Nat.

Brief for Respondents 22, But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters opunion with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress. These theories of relief were set forth in their complaint but were not reached by the Court of Appeals. Anteat 27, n.

This first important federal resort to the commerce power was followed in by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, thereafter, mainly afterby many others. Thus the case for the exemption comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation.

Our decision about whether gun possession in school zones substantially affected interstate commerce turned on four considerations.

The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)

See Darbysupraat Home care substitutes for daycare. Raich’s doctor stated that she would be in extreme, life-threatening pain if she did not use the marijuana as allowed under the California Compassionate Use Act. Angel McClary Raich, et al. Both federal and state legislation—including the CSA itself, the California Compassionate Use Act, and other state medical marijuana legislation—recognize that medical and nonmedical i. Because states’ power to set public health policy is deeply affected by the course of this debate, 3 this installment of Law and the Public’s Health is devoted to a discussion of Gonzales v.

  JULES BASS HEADHUNTERS PDF

Judge Harry Pregersonthe author of the opinion, noted that a minority of states had legalized medical marijuana but that under federal law, it is not a recognized “fundamental right” under the due process clause: In assessing the validity of congressional regulation, none of our Commerce Clause cases can be viewed in isolation.

The principal dissent claims that, if this is sufficient to sustain the regulation at issue in this case, then it should also have been sufficient to sustain the regulation at issue in United States v. See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. Producing marijuana only for home consumption, moreover, was similar to the farmer’s production of wheat in the Wickard case because it had an effect on the national market for the drug.

Raich and Monson then sued to enjoin enforcement of the CSA, arguing that, as applied to them, the CSA amounted to an unlawful exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Finally, to invoke the Supremacy Clause, as the majority does, ibid. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana or other drugs locally cultivated for personal use which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance.

Power, duty and restraint.