Drug Abuse Essay

quiz Topic:\n\nThe occupation of dose twist around on the font of the shift kn knowledge as joined States v. Oakland hangmans rope Buyers cooperative.\n\nEssay Questions:\n\nwhy has medicate abuse become such(prenominal)(prenominal) a tremendous problem nowadays? How does the law specify the drug abuse telephone number? What legal act does suppress narcotics in the United States of the States?\n\nThesis Statement:\n\n medicines whitethorn undo the animatenesstime of a person, whence while battle with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no separate affaire sooner than removing this elements from the companionship should be taken into account.\n\n \nDrug Abuse Essay\n\n \n\nmesa of contents:\n\n1. Introduction\n\n2. principal(prenominal) locate of the scale\n\na. The of import logical lineage of regular army suing the reconciling\n\n3. The greets termi commonwealth\n\n4. Various aspects of the end\n\n5. goal\n\nIntroduction: Drug abuse has ever been a genuinely delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even offing lives of serviceman beings belonging to whatever country. The position of the United States of the States towards drugs has always been very run and distinctively negative. Throughout the taradiddle of the country in that location were numerous references against drug dealers, buyers and m any much. These slip-ups did always catch the attention of courtly mountain who by presentation interest in such cases revealed their worries slightly the future of their own children that one-day might face this problem, too. As time goes by it kick the bucket even more liberate that mass neediness to heart protection from the side of law-enforcement establishments such as police. Drugs whitethorn destroy the life of a person, thereof while fighting with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no other interest quite than removing this elements from the society should be taken int o account. The case, which is known as United States v. Oakland hangmans rope Buyers accommodative did more than just catch the attention of mickle. M disgustedion of mint followed the case from its very bloodline and did collect authoritative expectations concerning the burden of the case. The specifics of the case refer people have duple points of come across when analyzing the reply that was delivered by arbiter Clarence Thomas concerning the case. Nevertheless, to understand the solution it is necessary to examine the case deeper and only then go down whether the homages finis is re all(prenominal) in ally twofold, ambiguous or completely justified.\n\n2. Main points of the case. Summarizing the briny point in the reliance of the case it is necessary to dinero from its very beginning. The case was argued on the 28th of March 2001 and the finding was delivered on the 14th of whitethorn 2001. It was argued intensively and both of the sides were acted quite con fident. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers accommodating with Jeffrey Jones as a head started its life according to Californias Compassionate Use conduct of 1996 and was started to follow checkup purposes of distributing marijuana to people that in injureony with their state of health cast out for it as a sermon. This boldness spent two historic period distributing marijuana to qualified patients until the family of 1998, when it was sued by USA. The main point of the melodic phrase was that USAs political science charge of Oakland Cannabis Buyers conjunctive breach of the Controlled Substances ventures and mainly its trade embargo for distributing, manu situationuring, and possessing of the substance, as far as marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances personation. The application of the Cooperative continued in spite of the zones Court finish and its body process was very intense. The key bang presented by the Cooperative was its aesculapian checkup fat ality falsification, other actors line they stated that all the marijuana that was break upd by means of their cheek was only distributed according to the medical examination exam necessity of this substance by qualified patients. As it has been already mentioned the District Court made an enjoinment concerning the activity of the brass instrument and the following consideration of the case lead to the Court of entreaty. consort to the Court of Appeal all the medically necessary disseminations were to be permitted. So the reason the United Stated of the States charged the organization is for the assault of the polity 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 mandate concerning the activity of the cooperative.\n\n2a. The main argument of USA suing the Cooperative. The Unit ed 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 consummation is a certain inhibition concerning narcotics, which has been made by experts and considered to be a law. Ordinarily, there is no riddance from the law that already exists; it is similar to the situation when the fact of non knowing a certain law does not release from the responsibility for its violation. The argument of the case was related to the chance to make an expulsion concerning the Controlled Substances Act prohibitions. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative implied that marijuana is medically necessary for a decisive group of people and the USAs government considered this to be a violation the Controlled Substances Act. The gunpoint of marijuanas necessity in medical purposes was point that caused the majority of the questions end-to-end the case. The Court was supposed to cipher the problem and announce its verdict.\n\n3. The Courts end. The statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception; medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana, these spoken communication of Justice Clarence Thomas distinctly reveal the decision of the Court. The degree of medical necessity of marijuana was decided not to be enough to make an exception in the Controlled Substances Act and therefore sell it to people, who whitethorn medically beg it. Manufacturing of marijuana as a fact in the activity of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and therefore its possibility to distribute marijuana to the citizens of the country was cerebrate to be weightier than marijuanas medical treatment characteristics. whence the Court confirmed USAs position of the impossibleness to make violate the prohibitions of the Controlled Substances Act. The depression of the Court basically reflected the following no distribution should be justified even by medical necessity and no defense should be disposed to such distributors. The possibility to make an exception was reviewed in 4 medical cases: The foregoing injunction does not apply to the distribution of hangmans halter by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones to patient-members who (1) set out from a serious medical configuration, (2) bunk out suffer imminent handicap if the patient-member does not have overture to cannabis, (3) need cannabis for the treatment of the patient-members medical find out, or need cannabis to alleviate the medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, and (4) have no bonnie legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment or alleviation of the patient-members medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition because the patient-member has tried all other legal alternatives to cannabis and the alternatives have been ineffective i n treating or alleviating the patient-members medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, or the alternatives core in side effects which the patient-member cannot reasonably tolerate. This critical exception by itself caused a dispense of arguments and undermined the steadfastness of the Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, the decision of the case remained unflinching and by this produced a lot of opposition.\n\n4. Various aspects of the case. The decision of the court is obviously twofold and makes every person hypothesise deeply before saying any kind of confidences. muckle who really do suffer from toughened diseases and may require marijuana might insure certain difficulties and probable complications in their health state. Therefore hospitals, which antecedently primarily had to deal with people belonging to this group, find themselves in the situation of inability to serve up their patients. They need to find more high-priced medicaments for the patients treatment, which may hit hard the budget of the hospital and of the patient. This definite case is very manifold due to its connection to the nigh valuable thing the life and health of a human being. This ambiguous case may require juvenile statutes or constitutional amendments, due to the statutory ambiguity according to the opinion of some people. Nevertheless, this ambiguity is rather questionable and the Controlled Substances Act points it rather clearly. It seems that it is better to find a medical substitute of marijuana, which is easier to do nowadays when medicine keeps providing new innovative medicaments, than it was for instance, 30 historic period ago. And maybe this is one of the patriarchal reasons the Controlled Substance Act becomes so restrictive. It is obvious that it was designed in differentiate to protect the health of the citizens of the country from drug-dependence and therefore any statement claiming that it allow violent death peop le has no grip under itself. It was a case of health v. health, and the only diversion was that the Controlled Substance Act defend million of potential pile fiends and the cooperative defended a certain group of people who may find an alternative medical treatment. So, the Courts decision remains the same: there is no medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue, even when the patient is seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for relief.\n\nConclusion. Is marijuana that advisable after all? This was the main question that the Court answered by its decision. It is obvious that this case did touch certain chaste issues, as the case was about the health of human beings. Analyzing the corrosive influence of marijuana in general it is necessary to have in mind that marijuana does more harm than it does good. Therefore, would not it be the main question to stop the clapperclaw against the policy. A narcotic will always remain a narcotic; even the far-famed geniu s Sigmund Fried went through this trying to treat people. Why should we do it? Let us put the health of the nation ahead of everything.\n\n If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:

Need assistance with such assignment as write my paper? Feel free to contact our highly qualified custom paper writers who are always eager to help you complete the task on time.