Running Head: FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON MARIJUANA
1
Federal legislation on marijuana
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Instructor:
Due Date:
FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON MARIJUANA
2
Federal Legislation on Marijuana
Introduction
Various states have passed legislation allowing the use of marijuana for medical
reasons. However, it is clear that these state laws do not by any case alter the fact that the drug
remains illegal under Federal law. The state laws emanated with the sole aim of creating some
legal defense for the sake of purported medical use of marijuana (Hoffmann & Weber 2010).
This then brings up a heated debate on whether to pass a federal legislation allowing the use
of marijuana for medical treatment or not. The stand in this paper is that of support to its
legalization by the federal government (Belenko, 2000). A main reason for this stand is that
the federal law will establish a common ground on its legislation as opposed to the different
criteria used by various states which as it is has been seen to expose loopholes. For instance,
in many states the state laws have changed to authorization of state-based production of
marijuana and its distribution for the purported medical treatment.
The Legislation
As per the legal frameworks provided for in the Controlled Substances Act, Schedule
I, where Marijuana ideally falls, marijuana has totally no medicinal value and lacks accepted
safety for use even if under supervision on top of the fact that it has high potential for abuse.
This then lists marijuana within the same legal jurisdiction with other drugs such as heroin,
cocaine and “Ecstasy”. Well, first off, it is true marijuana could have high potentials for
abuse. But that’s just as far as it’s supposed to go in the delimitation of actual use to a
possible shortcoming. Many medical drugs, even those licensed by pharmaceutical
associations have some level of potentiality for abuse of some kind (Belenko, 2000). The only
difference is, with them, their use is usually restricted to prescription by the physicians and
3
most of them survive with just that. This implies that the same can be done for marijuana and
policies and regulations put in place to control such use, with medical custodians put in place
to watch over and observe the patients.
At the same time, the state laws have immense variations in their criteria and
implementation and this in real sense is what has resulted into constant debates on important
aspects that including safety, efficiency and the legality of the marijuana state laws. There are
however loopholes for the abuse of marijuana among the population for other reasons that are
not medicinal (Mikos, 2009) especially within the provisions of the current standing
legislations. What the federal authorities now have are just insights with a ground for
prosecution. Regulation of marijuana on the other hand has not been communally reserved,
instead, these regulations has lead to the sprouting of a generation that is underground to their
actions, severely abusing the drug because they know they are not allowed to use it. Fact is,
what the regulations have done is to put the drug in a controversially high social class
(Belenko, 2000). By making it illegal, it implies that very few individuals will sustain the guts
to harbor the drug within their holdings and hence sell the drug off to willing buyers at
exorbitantly high prices, and hence the drug cartels and traffickers.
Ideally, the illegalization or the stating that the drug has no medical use leaves it for
leisure consumption which typically harbors the opportunity for abuse due to lack of
supervision and controlled monitoring. In the end, resources are wasted and an apt
opportunity for the federal government to earn from the potential disposition of the drug is
disdained, XXX XXXXXXXXXX can’t set up tax XXXXXXXX XXX a XXXXXXX it assumes XXXXX XXX XXXXXX
use. XX XXX have a population XXXX behind the curtains appreciates XXX XXXXXXX value XX the
drug especially in therapeutic situations XXX they are XXX supervised in their use of XXX drug.
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX ON MARIJUANA
4
XXXX then happens is that XXXX abuse the XXXX, XXXXX to its XXXXXXXXXX XX abuse XXX XXXXXXXXXXX
the fact that these XXXXXXXXXXX are only responsible XX XXXXX own XXXXXXX, are XXX answerable XX
any person, XXX the acquisition of XXX XXXX now XXXXXX on their XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX amount XX
money XXXX XXX XXXXXXX XX XXXX with.
XXXXXXX XX Legislation: DEA XXXX Scheduling
The XXXXX constructs XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX substance XXX XX habitat to five schedules within
which drugs are placed according to XXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXX for human consumption. XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, substances, and a XXXXXX XX chemical XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
pharmaceutical drugs XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX and dependency potentials ranked, XXXXX then
are used to XXXXXXXXX XXX classification of the XXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXX, while XXX
medical XXX XXX XXXX can XX XXX XX is determinate to XXX classification, it XX the abuse XXXX that
XX XXXXXXX concentrated XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX these XXXXX (XXXXXX, Chriqui,
Reichmann & XXXXX-McElrath, XXXX). XXX XXXXX rate and XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX and
physical dependencies XXXXX the levels XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX drugs XXX XXXXX the most
XXXXXXXXX drugs are put in XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX the XXXX follows in XXX same XXXXXX.
XXXXXXX the XXXXX XXXXXX for scheduling, there are also considerations for elemental
restrictions XXXX compound XXXXX drugs. This XXXXXXX XXXX within XXX drugs or XXXXXXXXXX, their
structures are XXXXXXXXXX made of elements or XXXXX chemical XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXX
classified XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX. However, in XXXX relative cases, some XXXXX substances may
XXX XX XXXXXXXXX yet XXXX XXX contain XXXX XXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXX elements. In such XXXXX, it
is the level of content in the XXXXXXXXX XXXX XX responsible for XXX classification XX XXX XXXX.
XXXXX substances XXXXXX in the schedules XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX I are XXXXXX for XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XXXXX in possession XX an XXXXXXXXXX (Belenko, 2000). XXXXXXX, a substance does
XXXXXXX LEGISLATION XX XXXXXXXXX
5
not need to XX listed in the XXXXXXXXX as a controlled XXXXXXXXX for it XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXX is XXX XXXXXXXX for XXX XX medication, XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX
prosecute XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX with it.
Schedule I
The first schedule XX XXX drugs XXX controlled XXXXXXXXXX act XX XXXXX XX Schedule I.
in XXXX schedule XXX chemicals, XXXXX, or substances considered not XXXX currently defined
medical XXX and XXXX a high potential XXX XXXXX and high XXXXXXXXXX levels. They are
XXXXXXXXX the XXXX dangerous XX all the XXXXX in the drugs XXX controlled substance act and
XXXX a high potential for XXXXXX physical XXX psychological effects. XX XXXX schedule XXX drugs
such XX XXXXXX, cannabis, methaqualone, XXXXXX, LSD, XXX ecstasy (XXXXXX, Chriqui,
Reichmann &XXX; Terry-McElrath, 2002).
XXXXXXXX II
XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX, substances or chemicals have high XXXXXXXXXX XXX abuse XXX less
potentials XXX abuse XXXX the XXXXXXXX I drugs XXX XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX, XXXXX drugs XXX XXXX
legally XXXXXXXXXX dangerous XXXXX XXXXX use XXX XXXX XX high physical or XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX to severity. XXXX XXXXXXX drugs XXXX as cocaine, Ritalin, XXXXXXXXXXXXX,
Demerol, OxyContin, metamphetamine, fentanyl, and so XX (XXXXXX, Chriqui, XXXXXXXXX &XXX;
XXXXX-McElrath, XXXX).
XXXXXXXX XXX
These are relatively XXXXXXXX in terms XX XXXXXXXXX XXX abuse XXX levels for XXXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX dependence. They XXX XXXXXXX XXXX dangerous than XXX schedule I and II
XXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXXXX of their XXXXXXXXXXXX for abuse but XXX more dangerous than XXXXX in
FEDERAL LEGISLATION XX XXXXXXXXX
X
XXXXXXXX IV. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX drugs such XX: XXX substances XXXXXXXXXX less XXXX 90
milligrams of XXXXXXX per XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, testosterone, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX steroids, XXX.
XXXXXXXX IV
XXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXXX XX XXXXX, XXXX, daryon, XXXXXXXX, valium, talwin, ambien,
XXX XXXXXX all of which are considered XX have XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and
psychological dependence.
Schedule V
The XXXX in the rank of XXXXXXXXX XXX with XXX lowest potential XXX XXXXX and XXXXXXXX
and/or XXXXXXXXXXXXX dependencies; these XXX be drugs with XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX mandatory narcotics. Drugs in XXXX schedule XXX therefore used for XXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXXXXXXX, and antidiarheal XXXXXXXX. They XXXXXXX drugs XXXX XX Robitussin XX, lomotil,
lyrica, motofen, and parapectolin (XXXXXX, Chriqui, XXXXXXXXX & Terry-McElrath, 2002).
XXX XXXXXXX Regulation of XXXXXXXXX: XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX Laws
XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Act XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX the federal XXXXXXXXXX and
enforced XX the Drug XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (XXX). Ideally, XXXXXXXXX through XXX
federal government, XXX as XXXXXXXX by the DEA, XXXXXXXXX has no recognized XXXXXXX XXX.
XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX therefore has no recognition XXXXXXXXXX XXX the XXXXXXXXXX between
XXX recreational/XXXXXXX use XX XXXXXXXXX XXX the XXXXXXX XXX XX it (XXXXX, 2000). So now, the
XXX is mandated to apply these punitive XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX in possession, distributes, or
cultivates XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXX since in XXXX XXXX, marijuana XX a controlled XXXXXXXXX
just like XXXXXXX and XXXXXX. XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX, therefore, XXXXXXX and physicians XXXXXX
prescribe marijuana XX XXXXXXXX for medical use; XXXX XXXXXXX can just recommend XXX XXX XX
XXX drug by XXX XXXXXXXX that is under XXX first XXXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXX law (XXXXXX, Chriqui,
Reichmann & Terry-XXXXXXXX, XXXX).
XX the XXXX time, XXXX XXXXXX have formulated state laws XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX of
marijuana XXX medical XXX. XXXXXX such provisions, the patients are protected XX the state laws
and XXX XXX or XXXXX their own XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX in limited XXXXXXXXXX. However,
implicatively, the federal government holds XXX right and authority XX XXXXXXXX the use of
marijuana XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXX DEA XXX XXXXXXXXX medical XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX
XX XXXX are XXXX a XXXXX where the XXXXXXXXX XXX of marijuana is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX protected.
This XX so despite XXX XXXX that the legalization of the use XX XXXXXXXXX in medical states XXXX
as XXXXXXXXXX is XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX constitutional and XXXXXXX XX law (XXXXX, 2000). XX XXXX case,
XXXXX is a XXXXXX conflict between XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX in discretional decisions XXXX XXX XXXXXX
made XX the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. So now XXXXXX XXX constitute XXXXX own XXXXX laws XX protect
XXXXX XXXXXXXX who need the use of XXXXXXXXX yet the government reserves XXX XXXXX XX XXX
XXXXXXXX on whether XX XXXXXXXXX the patients or XXX (Pacula, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX &XXX; XXXXX-
McElrath, XXXX).
XXXX happens XXXX XX that XXX DEA XXXXXXX on XXX enforcement XX the federal law and
XXX of XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXXXX patients XXX their caregivers in XXXXX case
some of XXXX XXXX been XXXXXXXX XXX XXX to prison. In XXXXX XXXXX, the XXX XXXX not XXXX XXX
authoritative XXXXXXX if XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXX marijuana alone. But then, the XXXXXXX
regulation XXXXXX them to use the CSA as a basis for arrest XXX prosecution of such XXXXXXXXXX
XX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX. XXXX has lead to XXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX numbers to XXXXX excessive
passion of the XXXX by the marijuana patients, and XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX with convicts XX serve as
witnesses XX XXX XXXXXXX cases so as XXXX to XXXXXXXX XXX medical XXXXXXXXX population. XX XXX
FEDERAL XXXXXXXXXXX XX MARIJUANA
XXX become a war XX the XXXXX populist; XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in XXX states with legal
XXXXXXXXXX XXX them are XXXXXX XXXXX best to control XXX XXXXXXX they use XXX the XXXXXXXX
medical XXXXXXXX, the XXX XX XX its side XXXXXX XX XXXX strategies XX disdain XXXX uses
amongst XXX states.
XXX then, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX are XXXXXXX XX play around with, they are very serious
XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX steep punishments XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXX in consideration XX
what might really XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXX XX DEA (Clark, 2000) XXXXX it quite
XXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXX XXXX XXXX most federal XXXXX have XXXX XXXX XXXXXX ruling out XXX XXXX XX
using medical marijuana as a defense implies some XXXXXXXX out XXXXXXX XXXXXX. XXXXX is
XXXXXXXX crack in the XXXXXXXXXXX concerning XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX no balance between
XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and XXX XXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXX XX the XXXXXXX law.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX, the federal XXX XXXXXXX in XXX states XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXX own XXXXXXXX of structures
XX legal XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXXXX XX the possession XX XXXXXXXXX, there are XXX types of
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX: the XXXXXXXXXX as enacted by XXX XX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXX XX the US XXXXXXXX both XXXX mandatory XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX.
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX also considers XXX history of past XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX arrested with
XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX imprisonment in which XXXX at XXXXX 85% of XXX XXXXXXXX XXXX be
served. XX most cases, the XXXX times XXXX according XX XXX amount of XXXXXXXXX XXX
individuals XXX found in possession.
The XXX XXXX in XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX the fact XXXX XXXX state XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX have
recognized the medical value XX marijuana XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX to XXX it under specific
handlers. XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX laws XX effect those XXXXXXXXX or have
XXXXXXXXXXX adopted XXXX. So XXXX the DEA has the XXXXX XXXXXXXXX to override such XXXXXXXXX,
9
it XXXXX such XXXXX constructs XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXX of XXXXX laws in flaws, XXX power
of XXX XXXX is then either miss XXXXXXXX or XXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXX, 2000). These XXX seen the
formation of associations in XXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXX of XXXXX marijuana for medical XXXXXXXX
such XX the XXXXXXXXXXX XXX Safe XXXXXX (ASA) XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX for XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX
XXX XXXXXXXXX made XX XXX states for XXX XXXXXX welfare of XXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX and XXX be XXXXXXXXXX on XXXXX XX the XXXXXXX considerations. XX now typical
XX XXXX consideration, the demanders for XXXX considerations should be individuals XXXX
medical conditions XXXX XXXXXXX the XXX of marijuana XXX XXX suppliers should be the XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX which the XXXXXXXXXXX practices using marijuana are XXXXXXXXX. Advancing XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX will ensure XXXX only some specific XXXXXX XXXXXXX are in XXXXXXX XX the supply of
XXXX drugs, XXX are XXXXX licensed XXX hence hold an XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX the
XXXXXXXXXXX on how their patients use XXX XXXXX.
XXXXXXXX Groups
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX groups have XXXX up XX advocate for the legalization XX XXX XXX XX
XXXXXXXXX especially medical purposes. These XXXXXX include the XXXXX XXXXXXXXX Americans
for Safe XXXXXX, XXX NORML organization, XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, Cannabis XXXXXXXX,
XXXX Rights Group, and XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. XXXX XX XXXXX advocates argue that XXX
XXXXXXX federal legislations XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX are full XX loopholes XXX do XXX XXXXXXX XXX
XXX legal XXXXXX XX XXX patients XXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXX medical XXXXXXXX. XX the XXXX time, XXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX dispute the use of XXXXXXXXX for XXXXXXX purposes XXX XXXX XX the XXXX
authorities have XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX to use XXXXXXXXXX of the drug to constitute XXXX XXXXX
XXXXX XXXXX by extension indicates the usability XX the XXXX.
10
These component XXXXX in most cases fail as they XXXXXX perform to XXX level natural
XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX. Again, the XXXXXXXXX impact XXXXXXX about XX XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX use XX marijuana XX opposed to XXXXXXXX the XXXXX use of XXX XXXX XX in billions XX wasted
resources in XXXXX XX law XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXX “enchanting”. XXXXXXXXX XX this XXXXXXXX, if
XXXXXXXXX was legalized, it could XXXX billions in XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXXX at
XXX same time, billions in revenue XXXXX XX generated through the regulated XXXXXXXXX XXX
proposed taxation. But XXXX XXXX’s XXX just XXX XXX of the XXXXXXXX, a XXX of patients XXX XXXXXX to
XXXXXXX from the legalization XX they XXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX to use XXX drug and XXXXX XX
able to enjoy the current therapeutic XXXXXXXXXX of the XXXX.
XXX advocating groups XXXX XXXXX XXXXX a XXXXXX XX suggestions to XXX federal
government XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX regards XX the XXX of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX for XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX. XXX XXXX common XXXXXXXX XX the drive for the federal XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXX the
XXXX XXXX Schedule I XX the XXX (Clark, XXXX). However, this has XXXXXX XXX XX XX an option
XX such XXXXXXXXXXXXXX have been XXXXXX ignored XX the federal government, this as it
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX is quite a XXXXXXXXXXXX outcry even XX the consideration XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XX they say, it is XXX XXXXXX to provide for the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX medical
marijuana XXXXX. In rescheduling, XXX XXXX would XX XXXXXX from the XXXXXXXX I which XXX very
stringent XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXX be XXXXXX in a less restrictive XXXXXXXX so as XX XXXXX XXX XXX
XXX regulation of XXX XXXX. This has however been meeting constant XXXXXXXXXX from the DEA
XX a XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX the XXXX XXX high abuse XXXXXXXXX with XX accepted XXXXXXX use within
the XXXXXXXXXX XX the federal XXXX of US. XX XXX, XXX only XXXXXXXX is XX re-commission the
XXXXXXXX XX reschedule XXX XXXX which would then XXXXXX the XXX’s decision and authority.
XX
XXX XXXXXX woos of the XXX of marijuana XX XXX fact that is XX approved XX the Food XXX
XXXX administration and therefore cannot be any XXX be XXXXXXXXXX XX any XXXXXXXXX or
XXXXXX. Another angle XX their argument, XXX CSA XX XXXXXXXX to regulate XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXX technically XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX given XX patients by doctors
through prescriptions. But XXXX, marijuana is not manufactured, hence XXXXXX not be put in XXX
XXX XXXXXXXXX, it is a XXXXXXX plant, XXXX XXXXX naturally XXX is used naturally XXXX XXX XXXXX.
Putting such a drug under the XXX provisions totally XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX use it can XX put
XX, XXXXX enough, XXX drug XX not XXXXXXXX within XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, it XX a herb XXX
way it is XXX XXXX not XXXXXXX modifications XX XXX sort XX make it XXXXXXXX for XXX. This XX
XXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX with which XXXX state medical marijuana XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX the
implications of XXX federal XXX on XXX use of XXXX drug especially within the approval of the
states themselves. Ideally, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX be removed XXXX XXX XXX. XX XXXX arguments
however, XXXXX is a XXXXX down in XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX marijuana XX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX. This
XXXX to XXX fact XXXX XXXXX are XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX that XXX XX used by XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
to XXXXXXXX levels to XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX liberal XXXXX XX the drug for XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The
advocacy XXXXXX XXXX the drug XX be XXXXXXX pulled out of XXX provisions XX the CSA.
Expected Interplay
XXX XXXXXXXXXXX on XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX of marijuana for XXXXXXX use are XXXXXX a game
play of XXXXX resonance and XXXXXXX consumptions XX XXXX this XXX implies and what the other
applies. XXXXX XXXX XX hold their XXXX of XXXX XX legit XXX XXXXXXX XXXX the DEA XXX XXX being
XXXXXXXX XX XXX desire and fiduciary allegiance XX perform their XXXXXX, or XXXX an XXXXXXXXX XX
XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX provide for, and XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX logic
and XXXXXXX XX construct XXX best XXXX XXXX to convince the federal XXXXXXXXXX XX XXX time
XXX at least listen XX XXXX, implement XXXXX XXXXXXX. XX the receiving XXX are two parties XX XXX
XXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXX who actually in real medical considerations, need the drug, and the
federal government XXXX is XXXXXX by the XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX the social XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX people
and XXXXX regulate XXXXXX consumptions (Clark, 2000). At the XXX XX the day, XXX gunplay is
that of claims; one XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX their XXXXXXXXXX is XXXX XXX XXXXX own XXXXXXXXXX
in XXXXXX and financial prosperity XXXXX XXX other XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX legal considerations
XXX safe XXX XXX good XX their own XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and conduct.
XXX posterities presented in this case of argument XX XXX XXXX demands a weighing
system that XXXX help XXXXXX XXXX XX really good for both XXXXXXXXX. XXX then, XX side of
argument XXXXXX XXX other, XXX XXXXXXXXX of their XXXXX XX also XXXX XXX XXXXXXX imbalance. In
XXXXXXXX, it XX XXXXX difficult XX understand XXX XX XXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX want XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX for pure XXXXXXXX XX medical XXX or for an XXXXXXXXX into XXX consideration of XXX
drug XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX (MacCoun & Reuter, XXXX). XX XXX XXXXX XXXX, XXX federal
XXXXXXXXXX makes it unclear what XXXXX XXXXXXXXX in XXX legal XXXXXXXXXX are, what are XXXX
protecting, or what XXX XXXX hiding. From a neutral XXXXX XX XXXX, XXXXXXXXXX is a XXXXXXXXXX,
but XXX considerations XX financial prosperity XXX XXXXXXXX for the country, and the improved
health XX its XXXXXX, the XXXX is worth it.
XXXX XXX point XX XXXXXXXX taken by this paper, XXX demanders XXX the XXXXXXXX,
represented by the XXXXXXXX groups XXXXX are XXX interest groups, XXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX
XX XX XXX accredited medical XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX licensed by the XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX
XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX, an XXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXX the government XXX becomes the XXXXXXXXX. XX
XXXX XXXX, XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX policy XXX mandated a number XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX,
XXXXXX in all XXX states to represent such ideals XXX XXXXXXX the interests of the XXX. However,
13
the policy XXXXXXXXXXX for the XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX slightly out XX the jurisdiction
XX XXX XXXXXXX consideration. So XXX XXX legal play in this XXXX is a XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX state
laws and the XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX’s XXXXXXXXXXXXX in such XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX power of
XXX state laws. In analysis, it is XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXX state law XXXX XXXXXXXXX and
application a lee XXX XX XXXX their own XXXXXX responsible XXX XXXXX social uptake XX the XXXXX
constructs of XXXX XXXX (XXXXX, 2000). XXXX means the current policy standoff XXXXXXX the
XXXXXXX government XXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX XX be XXXXXXXX to a XXXXXXXXXXX of
implementation, supervision, XXX XXXXXXXXXX. The XXXXX laws XXX XXXXX and XXXXXXXXX while XXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of such XXXX and regulate
whenever possible.
Strategic XXXXXX
From XXX above XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX holding XXX understanding of the implications XX
XXX use XX medical marijuana for XXXXXXXXX purpose, XXXXX XXXX XXXXXX be XXXXXXXXX and XXXXX
XXXXXXXXX. This will XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX whether or not the advocacy groups XXXX a XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX or XXX (MacCoun &XXX; XXXXXX, 1997). XXXXX consideration, there are XXXXX XXXXXXXXX in
XXX XXXXX structuring XXX XXXXXXXX of the XXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX the state
government XXX XXX XXXXXXX government XX its XXXXXX. XXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for states XX
XXXXXXXXXX their own XXXX XXX XXXXX governance still XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX laws the states
constitute XX XX demonstrated in XXXX XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX legalization (XXXXX, XXXX). The XXX
XXX ideally XXXXXXXXXXXXXX their XXXXXXX in consideration XX obstruction of XXX by registered
marijuana XXXXXXXX within XXX XXXXXX legalizing the use XX XXXXXXX marijuana. The XXXXX XX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX should XXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXX of the XXX
reserving just a decision XX XXXXXXX or XXX XX arrest XXX XXXXXXXXX individuals in XXXXXXXXXX XX
14
marijuana is XXXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. XX XXX same XXXX, XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX as
defended by XXXXX attorneys XXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX seem to be XXXXXXXXX
(XXXXXX‐Leoni, 1998). XXXX of XXX attorneys repute the use XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX a legit
defense XX XX used by XXX accused yet XX the same time subjects the XXXXXXXX to XXXXX
jurisdictions in XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXX is ideally a mishap in XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and
implementation of XXXXX laws as XXX been XXXXXXXX by some judges XX XXXX as XXX federal
XXXX XXX always XXXX the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX.
XX policy XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, marijuana unarguably XXX great benefits both XX XXX
government in terms of XXXXXXX and to XXXXXXXX in XXXX XX the XXXX for therapeutic purposes
(Crites‐Leoni, 1998). XX so saying, the XXXXXXXXXXXX of XXX drug XX all XXX XXX XXXX XX XXX
XXXXXXX public and there XXX great chances opportunities XXX XXXXXXXX in the drug shall be
opened XXXXX chances XX medical advances. XXXXXXX, XX not carefully implemented, XXXX a
XXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XX polluted social ills and unsettling social XXXXXXXXX due to XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX drug. In such XXXX, the best public policies XXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX
regulation XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, possession and use of XXX drug (XXXXXXX, 1998).
A typical strategic XXXXXX XXXXX require XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX of all exempts XXX
XXXX from XXX CSA. After the XXXXXXXXX, the federal government XXX create XXXXXX XXXXXXXX to
control XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX the XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXXX XXXX come XXXX XXXX
an XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXX‐XXXXX, XXXX). XXXXX XXX actual argument for the use XX XXXXXXXXX is
for XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, the XXXX can XX licensed to XXXX practicing hospitals, in counted
XXXXXXX, XXX with XXXXXXXXX checked partitioning by government representatives XXX
conformity. Such health XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XX provide XXX medical XXXX
required by XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX they XXXX closely XX monitored XXX that (XXXXXXX, 1998).
15
Any XXXXXXX recommend for XXX XXX XX XXXXXXX marijuana XXXX be XXXXX XXX license by XXX
XXXXXXXX XXX if XXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXX must XXXXXXX the same to the inspecting XXXXXXXXXXX. XXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XX XXX XXXX XXXXXX of XXX XXXX to XXX patients and XXX XXXX transaction
shall be XXXXXXX in a XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX the retribution of XXX XXXX, XXXXXXX XXX
XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX (Dogwill, XXXX). This XXXXXX strategy would
XXXX XXXXXXX that XXXXX XXXXXXXXX patient must have a XXXXXXX, a physician XX XXXXXXXXXX XXX
XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX the uptake levels of XXX patient till that XXXX when they will consider XXXX
XXXXXXXXXX as XXXXXXXXXXX (Crites‐Leoni, 1998). This strategy XXXX takes advantage of XXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXX provides XXXX patient a systemized digital identification as XXXXX of license to
use.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION XX MARIJUANA
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX, S. R. (Ed.). (XXXX). Drugs XXX drug XXXXXX in XXXXXXX: X XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX.
XXXXXXXX, CT: XXXXXXXXX Press.
XXXXX, P. X. (2000). The ethics XX medical marijuana: Government XXXXXXXXXXXX XX. XXXXXXX
necessity. Journal of Public XXXXXX Policy, XX-60.
XXXXXX‐Leoni, X. (1998). Medicinal use of XXXXXXXXX: XX XXX debate a XXXXX screen XXX
movement XXXXXX legalization?.
XXXXXXX, N. (1998). Burning XXXXXXXX: XXX XXXX XXX United XXXXXX XXXX with XXX XXXXXXX-
XXXXXXXXX Debate, XXX. Det. XX XXX. , 247.
XXXXXXXX, X. X., &XXX; Weber, E. (2010). Medical marijuana XXX the XXX. XXX XXXXXXX Journal
of Medicine, XXX(16), 1453-1457.
XXXXXXX, X., & Reuter, P. (1997). XXXXXXXXXXXX Dutch XXXXXXXX XXXXXX: XXXXXXXXX by analogy
in the XXXXXXXXXXXX debate. Science, 278(XXXX), XX-XX.
XXXXX, R. X. (2009). On the XXXXXX of supremacy: Medical marijuana and the states"
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX to XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX crime. Vanderbilt XXX XXXXXX, XX, XXXX.
Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J. X., XXXXXXXXX, X. A., & Terry-XXXXXXXX, Y. M. (XXXX). State
medical marijuana laws: Understanding XXX XXXX and their XXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX XX
public health policy, XXX-XXX.
XXXXXXX, J. (2015). XXX Bills XXXX XXXXXXXXXX To Congress Will Federally Legalize XXXXXXXX
in The XX. Web