Marijuana for Medical Purposes: The Supreme Courtâs Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyersâ Cooperative and Related Legal Issues (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (17 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised June 14, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RL31100 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Nov. 18, 2003 (15 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative , 532 U.S. 483
(2001), the
United States Supreme Court held, without dissent, that there is no medical necessity defense to the
federal law prohibiting cultivation and distribution of marijuana -- even in states which have created
a medical marijuana exception to a comparable ban under state law.
Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, a classification it reserved
for those substances which have no currently accepted medical use in the United States. Therefore,
the Court concluded, Congress could hardly have intended to recognize a medical necessity defense
for marijuana and recognition of any such defense would be contrary to Congress' clear
intentions.
The Coop raised three constitutional issues in its brief before the Court. It suggested that a
federal medical marijuana ban would exceed the reach of Congress' authority to regulate
interstate
commerce; that such a ban would be contrary to the constitutional reservation of powers to the
people; and that such a ban would be contrary to the substantive due process rights of patients who
use marijuana for medical reasons. The Court did not address the constitutional issues suggested in
the Coop's brief because the lower court decision under review did not rule upon them.
Other courts
have disagreed over whether enforcement of the ban against physicians is contrary to their First
Amendment right to free speech.
The Court's description of matters within Congress' legislative authority under
the commerce
clause in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison indicates that the
federal ban on the
cultivation, distribution or possession of marijuana lies within Congress' prerogatives. The
Court
confirmed that Congress' commerce power permits it to ban in-state cultivation and
possession of
marijuana for medical purposes in Gonzales v. Raich . Its characterization of the limitations
on the
enacting clause in Prinz v. United States and of the circumstances warranting expanded
substantive
due process recognition in Washington v. Glucksberg encumber the Coop's
contentions on those
counts.
Related legislative activity in this Congress includes a proposal for an exception to the federal
prohibitions in those states whose laws allow use of marijuana for medicinal purposes
( H.R. 2087 ).
