Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. The position of the United States of America towards drugs has always been very clear and distinctively negative. Throughout the history of the country there were numerous cases against drug dealers, buyers and many more. These cases did always catch the attention of civil people who by showing interest in such cases revealed their worries about the future of their own children that one-day might face this problem, too. As time goes by it get even more clear that people need to feel protection from the side of law-enforcement establishments such as police. Drugs may destroy the life of a person, therefore while fighting with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no other interest rather than removing this “elements” from the society should be taken into account.
The case, which is known as “United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative” did more than just catch the attention of people. Million of people followed the case from its very beginning and did have certain expectations concerning the outcome of the case. The specifics of the case made people have twofold points of view when analyzing the solution that was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas concerning the case. Nevertheless, to understand the solution it is necessary to examine the case deeper and only then decide whether the Court’s decision is really twofold, ambiguous or completely justified.
Summarizing the main point in the opinion of the case it is necessary to start from its very beginning. The case was argued on the 28th of March 2001 and the decision was delivered on the 14th of May 2001. It was argued intensively and both of the sides were acted rather confident. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative with Jeffrey Jones as a head started its life according to California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and was started to follow medical purposes of distributing marijuana to people that in accordance with their state of health qualify for it as a treatment. This organization spent two years distributing marijuana to “qualified patients” until the year of 1998, when it was sued by USA. The main point of the argument was that USA’s government charge of Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative breach of the Controlled Substances Act’s and mainly its “embargo” for distributing, manufacturing, and possessing of the substance, as far as marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act. The activity of the Cooperative continued in spite of the District’s Court decision and its activity was very intense. The key issue presented by the Cooperative was its medical necessity defense, other words they stated that all the marijuana that was distributed by means of their organization was only distributed according to the medical necessity of this substance by qualified patients. As it has been already mentioned the District Court made an injunction concerning the activity of the organization and the following consideration of the case lead to the Court of Appeal. According to the Court of Appeal all the “medically necessary distributions were to be permitted”.
So the reason the United Stated of America charged the organization is for the violation of the policy concerning the distribution and manufacturing of the substance. On the other side the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative cited the medical necessity defense which was approved the Court of Appeal and lately made the District Court change its injunction concerning the activity of the cooperative.
The United States of America on its side presented a tremendously weighty argument that deals with the law of the country in the first place. The mentioned above Controlled Substances Act is a certain prohibition concerning narcotics, which has been made by experts and considered to be a law. Ordinarily, there is no exception from the law...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document