British 102. 211
August 13, 2008
Medical Marijuana, Specific Autonomy, and State Specialist: The Reclamation of Privileges
In recent years, the debate over medical pot has become progressively contentious and highly polarized. Patients, medical practitioners, citizens, lawyers, politicians, and lobbyists, mention just a few, have became a member of the processes of deliberation and legislative movements; some counsel for the primacy of patient legal rights, while others tension points of medical research, condition oversight, or perhaps federal supremacy. These parts of advocacy intertwine, overlap, and inherently turmoil, and, as such, legislative steps intended to solve the argument seem only to inflame that. While state-based legislation, in places like California, Vermont, and Rhode Island, attempts to regulate medical marijuana вЂ“ and to safeguard patient legal rights of autonomy and specialist rights of discretion, the us government claims legal jurisdiction and authority. As a result, medical marijuana is classified as a great illegal substance, in accordance with the Federal Handled Substance Take action of 70, and sufferers, practitioners, and states are deprived of their respective prerogatives regarding medical oversight. Though federal adjustment of medical marijuana prohibition is, unfortunately and unwaveringly, common, this represents a seizure of localized electrical power and a gross expansion of federalism. The autonomy and privacy of individuals, particularly unwell citizens in search of liberty in the most personal matters (those of physical health and medical treatment), is circumvented by federal intervention; the ability of state legislatures to fulfill their very own constitutionally gifted powers of oversight is definitely severely impeded. Ultimately, the federal prohibition of medical marijuana [under the Controlled Chemicals Act of 1970] represents a centralized maltreatment of power in that (1) it violates individual rights of personal autonomy and personal privacy, as described by the Thanks Process Clause and (2) it violates states' rights to legal authority and oversight, while defined by Commerce Clause. It is my intention, in the following newspaper, to examine the aforementioned violations; so , too, will I contend that federal medication enforcement manifestly infringes upon patients, professionals, citizens, and states: Within the rights of people to suggest and/or to pursue courses of medical treatment that they deem suit, that protect their pride, that place premium upon the tenet of caring care; within the rights of states, and their citizens, to determine how to deal with and/or sort out medical pot. Arguably, person rights in matters of individual perseverance (i. at the. medical treatment), as described through a constitutional purview, would be the basis of autonomy, privacy, and freedom. These kinds of principles prolong to the specialist of claims, and to the complimentary and subsequent limits of government power, in order to preserve a well-balanced and sustainable political environment. The issue of medical marijuana may appear to affect only some of the populated, but вЂ“ as I hope to illustrate вЂ“ it symbolizes a federal encroachment on the simplest American tenets and a violation of the most valuable constitutional endowments. The Federal Handled Substances Act vs . Medical Marijuana
The Federal Controlled Substances Act of 70 (FCSA) presents the greatest hurdle to protecting, state-based medical marijuana legal guidelines, in that it prohibits besides making patients and practitioners responsible for prescription, dotacion, or purchase of the medicine (U. S. Department of Justice, 1). The FCSA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance; such substances вЂ“ based on the U. H. Department of Justice website, where the FCSA is provided in its entirety вЂ“ possess " large potential for mistreatment, вЂќ " lack of recognized safety intended for useвЂ¦ below medical oversight, вЂќ and " simply no currently approved medical utilization in treatment inside the United StatesвЂќ (U. H. Department of Justice, 1). Schedule I substances...
Cited: Drug Control Policy, 1937-2000. вЂќ Diary of Insurance plan History 19. 2 (2007): 147-179. Academics Search Premier. UNLV Lib., Las Vegas, NR. 30 July 2008.
Gostin, Lawrence To. " Medical Marijuana, American Federalism, and the Supreme Courtroom. вЂќ Diary
from the American Medical Association 294. 7 (2005): 842-854
Jill, B. Jessie. " The Constitutional Directly to Make Medical therapy Decisions: A Tale of Two
Projet. вЂќ The state of texas Law Assessment 86. a couple of (2007) 277-345
McCarthy, Kathleen T. " Conversations About Medical Marijuana Between Physicians and Their
Patients. вЂќ The Journal of Legal Medicine 25 (2004): 333-349
McClairy-Raich, Angel. " Last Resorts and Fundamental Rights: The Hypostatic Due Procedure
Significance of Prohibitions on Medical Marijuana. вЂќ Harvard Legislation Review 118. 6 (2005): 1985-2006