Gonzales v Raich: The US supreme court's consideration captured the public policy debate about the medical use of marijuana

Gender Medicine

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 124-130

  Lorber, Leah ^a  

^a Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANNABIS;

ARTICLE; BACKACHE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COURT; DECISION MAKING; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG TRAFFIC; DRUG USE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE AVAILABILITY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LAW SUIT; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MUSCLE SPASM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED STATES;

CANNABIS; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; HUMANS; PHYTOTHERAPY; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLIC POLICY; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 28244478474     PISSN: 15508579     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1550-8579(05)80040-3     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Gonzales v Raich, 125 SCt 2195 (2005).
2. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Pub L No. 91-513, 84 Stat 1242 (1970) (popularly known as the Controlled Substances Act).
3. Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal Health & Safety Code §11362.5 (1996).
4. Brief for Respondents, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 2308766 (US 2004).
5. Raich v Ashcroft, 248 FSupp2d 918 (ND Cal 2003).
6. Raich v Ashcroft, 352 F3d 1222 (9th Cir 2003).
7. Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, ch. 3915, 34 Stat 768 (1906), repealed by Act of June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §902(a), 52 Stat 1059.
8. Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub L No. 75-238, 50 Stat 551 (1937) (repealed 1970).
9. Gouldin LP Cannabis, compassionate use and the commerce clause: Why developments in California may limit the constitutional reach of the federal drug laws Annu Surv Am Law 1999 471-525
10. Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v DEA, 930 F2d 936 (DC Cir 1991) (remanding petition to DEA Administrator due to federal government errors in administrative proceedings);
11. National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v DEA, 559 F2d 735 (DC Cir 1977) (remanding petition to DEA Administrator due to federal government errors in 1975 administrative proceedings);
12. National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v Ingersoll, 497 F2d 654 (DC Cir 1974) (remanding petition to DEA Administrator due to errors in federal government administrative proceedings and describing 1972 court ruling denying review on court procedural ground).
13. Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v DEA, 15 F3d 1131 (DC Cir 1994).
14. Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22 1988 Dept of Justice DEA Available at: http://www.drug library.org/schaffer/library/studies/ YOUNG/index.html. Accessed June 29, 2005.
15. Marijuana Scheduling Petition, denial of petition, 54 Federal Register 53767 (1989).
16. Doblin RE Kleiman MAR Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: A survey of oncologists' experiences and attitudes J Clin Oncol 9 1991 1314-1319
17. Joy JE Watson SJ Jr Benson JA Jr eds. Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base 1999 Institute of Medicine, Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health Available at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html. Accessed June 29, 2005.
18. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Cannabis: The scientific and medical evidence 9th Report, HL Paper 151, Session 1997-1998 http://www.thc4ms.org/pdf/0002.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2005.
19. Amici curiae brief for the Lymphoma Foundation of America et al, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 2344234 (US 2004).
20. Amici curiae brief for the Drug Free America Foundation, Inc, et al, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 1843964 (US 2004).
21. Researcher working on medical patch to deliver marijuana-like chemicals 2003 Associated Press
22. Bailey E British firm holds hope for users of medical pot sect B2 Los Angeles Times 2004 February 2
23. Brief for Petitioners, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 1799022 (US 2004).
24. February Office of National Drug Control Policy Marijuana fact sheet 2004 Available at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/ factsht/marijuana. Accessed June 29, 2005.
25. April National Drug Intelligence Center National drug threat assessment 2004 Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs8/8731. Accessed June 29, 2005.
26. Amici curiae brief of US Rep Mark E Souder et al, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 1835362 (US 2004).
27. Amici curiae brief of Dr Robert L DuPont et al, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 1843965 (US 2004).
28. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Summary of Findings, 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 2000 US Department of Health & Human Services Rockville, Md
29. US Supreme Court Official Transcript, Gonzales v Raich, No. 03-1354, 2004 WL 2845980 (US 2004).
30. Brazil E Federal marijuana law will be enforced here San Francisco Examiner sect A1 November 7 1996
31. Scalia J Bureau of Justice Statistics special report. Federal drug offenders, 1999 with trends 1984-99 2001 Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fdo99.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2005.
32. Amici curiae brief for California Nurses Association and DKT Liberty Project, Ashcroft v Raich, No. 03-1454, 2004 WL 2336548 (US 2004).
33. Notice of denial of petition, 66 Federal Register 20038 (2001).
34. House Amendment 272 to the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006, HR 2862, 109th Cong, 1st Sess. (2005) (amendment sponsored by Reps. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY] and Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]). 151 Cong Rec H4519 (June 15, 2005).