Marijuana for Medical Purposes: A Glimpse of the Supreme Courtâs Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyersâ Cooperative and Related Legal Issues (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
June 14, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RS20998 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
There is no medical necessity defense against prosecution for the federal crimes of cultivating
or
distributing marijuana, even in places where state law recognizes such a defense. So said the
Supreme Court in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative , 532 U.S.
483, 486
(2001). Although there may be some question as to their vitality, the Court left undecided issues
involving a necessity defense for possession and possible commerce clause, enactment clause, and
due process clause challenges. In Gonzales v. Raich , 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), the Court held
that
Congress's' power under the commerce clause enabled it to enact a regulatory
scheme that extended
to the purely local cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes. There are proposals
in this Congress to reverse the impact of the Court's decisions.
This is an abbreviated form of CRS Report RL31100 , Marijuana for Medical Purposes: The
Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative and Related
Legal Issues , stripped of its footnotes and citations to authority. Penalties authorized for
violations
of the Controlled Substances Act are discussed in CRS Report 97-141(pdf) , Drug Smuggling, Drug
Dealing and Drug Abuse: Background and Overview of the Sanctions Under the Federal Controlled
Substances Act and Related Statutes .
